DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (E.E.), PUNJAB and others vs LIAQAT ALI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which granted a civil servant arrears of pay for the period his departmental appeal remained pending. The respondent had been dismissed from service, but his departmental appeal was subsequently accepted, leading to his reinstatement. However, the authorities treated the period during which the appeal was pending as leave without pay. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, reinstated after a wrongful dismissal, is entitled to salary arrears for the period his departmental appeal remained pending, particularly when the delay in deciding that appeal was not attributable to his own conduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent was entitled to the arrears. The Court reasoned that since the dismissal order was set aside and the delay in the departmental appeal process was not caused by the respondent, he could not be penalized by the denial of salary. The principle established is that a civil servant cannot be deprived of salary for the pendency of a departmental appeal if the delay is not attributable to their own conduct.
- Is a civil servant entitled to salary arrears for the period their departmental appeal remained pending if the delay was not caused by their own conduct?
- Can a department treat the period of a pending departmental appeal as leave without pay after reinstating a dismissed employee?
- Does the denial of salary for the period of a pending departmental appeal constitute a question of law of general public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 25-9-2001 of 'the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore thereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed holding him entitled to the payment of arrears of pay from 9-5- 1995 to 26-5-1998.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that the respondent was dismissed from service on 9-5-1995 on the charge of absence from duty with effect from 15-9-1993 to 18-1-1994. He filed a departmental appeal within time and the Director Education (Elementary) accepted the same on 27-5-1998 and reinstated him in service. However, his salary qua the period during which he remained out of service was treated as leave without pay.
3. ' The respondent filed Appeal No,1050 of 1998 before the Tribunal assailing the aforesaid order, dated 27-5-1998, which was disposed of on 24-1-2000 with a direction to the Director, Public Instructions (Elementary), Punjab to decide his claim for the payment of his dues from 9-5-1995 to 26-5-1998 i.e, the period during which his departmental appeal remained pending and from 15-9- 1993 to 18-1-1994 i,e, the period during which he allegedly remained absent from duty on the basis of which he was dismissed from service.
4. ' The Director, Public Instructions, Punjab allowed the respondent arrears of salary to the period he remained absent for which he was penalized but the period during which his departmental appeal remained pending was treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
5. ' The respondent made a representation against the, above order before the Secretary Education and after waiting for the mandatory period of 90 days filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal, which has been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 25-9-2001 in the terms stated in opening paragraph. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
6. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment. We fail to understand how the delayed decision in the departmental appeal could be attributed to the respondent. The petitioner's authorities could not produce any record before the Tribunal so as to substantiate their stance that the departmental appeal of the respondent could not be decided in time because of his conduct. We have also noticed that the competent authority had set aside the order of dismissal from service of the respondent being satisfied that the same was not passed in a proper manner. In this background if the respondent was not at fault in any manner, how he could be deprived of his salary for the period during which his departmental appeal could not be decided by the competent authority in time. Even otherwise, no question of law of general public importance as envisaged within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, warranting interference by this Court is involved in this petition.