Pakistan Case Law
1999 SCMR 1873

ALI NAWAZ vs PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman/Secretary and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1999 SCMR 1873
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 1740-L of 1996 Appeal No, 370(L) of 1995
Date1998-06-10
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif
Authored byIrshad Hasan Khan
ResultPetition allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated a Pakistan Railways employee after his removal from service for misconduct but denied him back benefits. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in denying back benefits to an employee who was exonerated of all charges and was not gainfully employed during the period of his removal. The Supreme Court observed that the department's action of removing the employee was unjustified and that the employee had been fully exonerated, not merely granted relief on technical grounds. Furthermore, the department had not challenged the reinstatement order, and it was conceded that the employee remained unemployed during the relevant period. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the denial of back benefits was improper. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order regarding the denial of back benefits and directed that the appellant be paid full back benefits from the date of his removal to the date of his reinstatement, establishing the principle that an exonerated employee is entitled to back benefits where no gainful employment elsewhere is proven.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is an employee who is exonerated of misconduct charges entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement?
  • Does the failure of an employer to challenge a reinstatement order impact the employee's entitlement to back benefits?
  • Can back benefits be denied to a reinstated employee if it is established they were not gainfully employed during the period of removal?
back benefitsreinstatementmisconductservice lawexonerationgainful employmentPakistan Railways

' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-5-1996 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No,370-L of 1995.

2. The petitioner is a Railways employee. He was removed from service with effect from 13-7-1995 on the charges of misconduct. On appeal, the charges levelled against him were found not proved and consequently he was reinstated in service without payment of arrears for the period from the date he was removed to the date of his joining the department vide impugned judgment, dated 21st May, 1996. Admittedly, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges against him and not for technical reasons or by granting him benefit of insufficiency of evidence. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:- "We have looked into all the aspects of the case and clumsy reaction of the department by removing him from service with effect from 13-7-1995 when he had asked for reply to be given by 14-7--1995. The action taken i.e, the removal of the appellant from service is not justified when he is not given even time to explain his case by the ruthless action by the department."

3. After hearing the petitioner in person and Mr. Aslam Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court, learned Legal Advisor to the Railways, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in denying back benefits to the petitioners, particularly when it is an admitted fact that no appeal has been filed by the respondent-Railways against the impugned order dated 21- 5-1996, whereby the petitioner has been reinstated in service, moreso when the learned Legal Advisor has frankly conceded that during the period of his removal and reinstatement the petitioner was not gainfully employed anywhere.

4. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and allowing the same set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 21-5-1996 to the extent of denying the appellant back benefits.

5. The result is that the appellant shall be paid back benefits from the date of his removal to the date of his reinstatement. No costs.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.