NOOR MUHAMMAD, LINEMAN-I vs THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER and anothers
The petitioner, a Lineman-I in WAPDA, was compulsorily retired from service and subsequently reinstated by the departmental appellate authority. However, the appellate authority treated the intervening period between his retirement and reinstatement as extraordinary leave without pay and back benefits. The petitioner's appeal against this denial of back benefits was dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, contending that the delay in deciding his departmental appeal was entirely attributable to the departmental authority, which required the petitioner to file a writ petition and contempt proceedings in the High Court to obtain a decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider whether the withholding of pay and back benefits for the period during which the appeal remained pending was legally justified, and whether the petitioner was entitled to full back benefits upon his reinstatement.
- Whether a civil servant reinstated in service after compulsory retirement is entitled to back benefits and pay for the intervening period when the delay in deciding the departmental appeal is attributable to the department?
- Whether the departmental appellate authority is legally justified in treating the intervening period between compulsory retirement and reinstatement as extraordinary leave without pay?
ORDER
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner, a Line-man-I in WAPDA was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 22-5-1993. He filed departmental appeal on 11-7-1993 which was accepted by the Chairman Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala vide order dated 2-11-1995 whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service but the period intervening between his compulsory retirement and reinstatement was treated as extraordinary leave without pay and without back benefits. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the refusal of the appellate authority to grant him pay and back benefits for the period in question in an appeal before the Service Tribunal but with no better result as his appeal has been dismissed by the learned Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 11-4- 1996/7-2-1996. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has submitted that the petitioner filed the departmental appeal within two months of his compulsory retirement. The appeal was, however, not decided by the competent authority for a pretty long time. Petitioner, therefore, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a direction for disposal of his appeal which direction was issued by the High Court on 1-12-1994. Notwithstanding the order of the High Court, the appellate authority in the department failed to decide the petitioner's appeal. Petitioner, therefore, had to approach the High Court once more for initiating contempt proceedings against the departmental authority. It was only thereafter that his appeal was disposed of/accepted by the appellate authority on 2-11-1995. Basing himself on these facts, the learned counsel sought to contend that the impugned order of the appellate authority withholding the pay and back benefits for the period during which petitioner's appeal remained pending with him was wholly unjustified. In the submission of learned counsel, the appeal of the petitioner having been accepted, he was entitled to all the back benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement up to the date of his reinstatement.
3. The afore-noted contention of the learned counsel needs consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to the petitioner and it is directed that since the matter relates to the emoluments of the petitioner, appeal may be heard on the present record within three months.
Parties, of course, are at liberty to file any documents which they wish to bring on record.