2008 PLC (C (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASAD Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
| Citation | 2008 PLC (C (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice (R) Mansur Alamgir Qazi and Tariq Farook, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASAD Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLC (C (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLC (C (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Justice (R) Mansur Alamgir Qazi and Tariq Farook, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLC (C (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASAD Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Arshad Virk for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ishaq Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Counsel for authorities had stated that they were prepared to reinstate appellant in accordance with the judgment of Service Tribunal, but they could not do so because appellant was not willing to refund the gratuity/commutation/pension drawn by him as required under the provisions of the Civil Pensioners Rules No.2605 & 2606/C.S. R.511 & 512
Tribunal, however observed that said Rules were applicable in the case of "re-employment" in service and were not relevant in the case wherein appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service
Appellant who was liable to refund said amount, had stated that he was unable to do so in lump sum, because he was unemployed ever since his compulsory retirement
In order to resolve the matter, it was decided that appellant would be re-instated in service with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement; that since according to judgment of the Tribunal payment of back benefits would depend on out come of the fresh proceedings, period of his un-employment to the date of judgment, could be treated as leave of the kind due, however, if. appellant was exonerated in the de novo proceedings, he would become entitled to receive the full consequential back benefits; that period from date of judgment would be treated as on duty in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal; that emoluments accruing to the appellant would be adjusted against the amount disbursed to appellant on account of gratuity/commutation/pension; that remaining balance, if any, to be recovered from the appellant would be refunded to appellant in .monthly instalments and that since appellant would be actually reinstated in service he would not receive any pension etc.
Authorities were directed to comply with said orders and finalize the de novo inquiry within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that they are prepared to reinstate the petitioner in accordance with the judgment dated 13-5-2005 of the Federal Service Tribunal but they are unable to do so because the petitioner is not willing to refund the gratuity/commutation/ pension drawn by him, as required under the provisions of the Civil Pensioners Rules No.2605 and 2606/C.S.R.511 and
512. It is, however, observed by the Tribunal that the above cited Rules are applicable in the case of "re-employment" in service and are not relevant in the instance case wherein the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service. The petitioner is no doubt liable to refund the amount of gratuity/ commutation/pension received by him but the learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner is unable to do so in lump sum because he is unemployed ever since his compulsory retirement. In order to resolve the matter it is decided as follows:- (i) the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement i.e. 6-7-2001 as already decided by the Federal Service Tribunal vide judgment, dated 13-5-2005; (ii) since the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment dated 13-5-2005 states that the payment of back-benefits shall depend on the outcome of the fresh proceedings, the period from 6-7-2001 to the date of judgment i.e. 13-5-2005 may for the time being, be treated as leave of the kind due. However, if the petitioner is exonerated in the de novo proceedings, he petitioner shall become entitled to receiving the full consequential back-benefits for the period from 6-7-2001 to 13-5-2005; (iii) the period from 13-5-2005 onwards shall be treated as on duty in accordance with the judgment, dated 13-5-2005 of the Federal Service Tribunal. Although the respondents have failed to reinstate him in service so far but the learned counsel for the respondents has undertaken before the Tribunal today that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service w.e.f. 1-5-2006; (iv) the emoluments accruing to the petitioner in the light of (ii) and (iii) ante i.e. for the period from 6-7-2001 to 13-5-2005 and for the period' from 13-5-2005 to 30-4-2006 shall be adjusted against the amount disbursed to the petitioner on account of gratuity/ Commutation/pension; (v) the remaining balance, if any, to be recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded by him in monthly instalments @ 1/3rd of his salary per month starting from 1-5-2006 onwards; (vi) since the petitioner will be actually reinstated in service w.e.f. 1-5-2006, he shall not receive any pension, etc. The respondents are directed to comply with the above orders and finalize the de novo inquiry, if so decided, within a period of three months. With the above directions, and M.P. is disposed of. H.B.T./50/FST Order accordingly.