Ch. ABDUL REHMAN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 3 others
The petitioner, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal via a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the refusal of back-benefits upon his reinstatement. The petitioner had been proceeded against under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, and subsequently retired under section 17(1-A)(a) of the Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958. The Service Tribunal allowed his appeal and ordered his reinstatement without back-benefits, treating the intervening period as leave. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of a reinstated employee to back-benefits following an unlawful retirement. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal exercised its discretion properly in denying back-benefits and that no question of law of public importance was involved. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the grant of back-benefits upon reinstatement is a matter of discretion for the Tribunal, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such discretion absent a question of law of public importance.
- Is an employee automatically entitled to back-benefits upon reinstatement in service by the Service Tribunal?
- Does the refusal of back-benefits by the Service Tribunal raise a question of law of public importance warranting interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Section 17(1-A)(a), Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---The petitioner an employee of Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) was proceeded against under WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 for the charge of misconduct and was awarded the punishment of withholding next promotion for a period of three years. The petitioner after availing the departmental remedies, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and pending disposal of the appeal, he was retired from service under section 17(1-A)(a) of Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, which is read as under: "(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any law, settlement or award for the time being in force, or any rules or regulations issued by the Authority, or in the terms and conditions of Service of any person employed by, or serving under, the Authority, the Authority may, at any time--
(a) retire from its service any person without assigning any reason; or
(b) .......................................................................
2. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against his retirement was not decided within the statutory period, therefore, he approached the Federal Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The Tribunal having considered the matter in detail, allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 7-5-2002 and passed the order of reinstatement of the petitioner in service without the back-benefits and directed that petitioner would be treated on leave during the period he remained out of service.
3. The petitioner through this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of Service Tribunal to the extent of refusal of relief of back-benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the retirement of the petitioner from service being not legal, he was wrongly deprived of his legitimate right of earning of livelihood, therefore, he was entitled to the grant of back-benefits.
5. The perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal having considered the question relating to the grant of back-benefits in detail, found the petitioner not entitled to such relief. We cannot take any exception to the discretion exercised by the Tribunal and further no question of law of public importance is involved in this petition for interference of this Court, therefore, this petition is dismissed. Leave is refused.