ABDUL WAHID vs CHAIRMAN, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal regarding the refusal of back benefits upon his reinstatement. The brief facts indicate that the petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Customs Department in February 1990 via the Placement Bureau, and his services were terminated on January 2, 1991. Following remand and a subsequent Cabinet Division decision directing the reinstatement of persons appointed between December 2, 1988, and August 6, 1990, whose services were terminated, the petitioner was reinstated on December 8, 1993, but denied back benefits. The petitioner contended that the denial amounted to discriminatory treatment, citing a precedent where another similarly situated employee was granted back benefits by the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding discriminatory treatment required examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
- Whether a civil servant reinstated in service pursuant to a Cabinet decision is entitled to back benefits?
- Does the denial of back benefits to one reinstated employee while granting them to a similarly situated employee constitute discriminatory treatment?
ORDER
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The Petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 6--6-1995 whereby service appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the Customs Department in February, 1990 on the recommendations of Placement Bureau. His services were subsequently terminated on 2-1-1991. The petitioner after exhausting departmental remedy approached the Service Tribunal which remanded the case on 21-1-1993 to the departmental authority with the direction to reexamine the case of the petitioner. It appears that in the meantime the Cabinet Division took the decision on 22-11-1993 which directed reinstatement of all persons in service who were appointed during the period from 2-12-1988 to 6-8-1990 but their services were subsequently terminated. The petitioner was, accordingly, reinstated in service on 8- 12-1993. However, the petitioner was not allowed the back benefits. The petitioner, accordingly, made a representation to the Departmental Authority for allowing him back benefits which was declined. The petitioner then filed service appeal which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment against which he is seeking leave to appeal.
3. ' This Court issued notice to learned Deputy Attorney-General on 15-11-1995 to appear in the case and state whether back benefits are provided to those , Government servants who were employed through the Placement Bureau and whose services were terminated and who have now been reinstated in service under the decision of Cabinet Division. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has not appeared in spite of service of notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the decision of learned .Service Tribunal dated 16-10-1993 in the case of another employee of Customs Department, Najeebullah Khan, who was allowed back benefits by the learned Service Tribunal while ordering his reinstatement in service. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that like the petitioner Najeebullah Khan was also appointed through Placement Bureau but his services were later terminated and now he has been reinstated in service. However, while in the case of Najibullah, the learned Tribunal allowed the back benefits, the same was disallowed to the petitioner which amounts to discriminatory treatment to the case of petitioner.
4. ' The contention requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.