2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL MAJID Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M), GUJRANWALA and others
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M), GUJRANWALA and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL MAJID Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M), GUJRANWALA and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Tariq Javed for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ashiq, D.A. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil servant whose services were terminated after about eight months of his appointment was reinstated after about three years from his termination
Civil servant claimed arrears of pay for the period he remained out of job after his termination and also claimed seniority from the date of his initial appointment
Reinstatement of the civil servant was fresh appointment from the date of reinstatement
Civil servant had himself given undertaking not to claim arrears of pay for period he remained out of job, but he had not foregone his right of seniority
Civil servant was not entitled to arrears for period he remained out of job but he was entitled to seniority from the date of his initial appointment because he was reinstated in service which included such benefit
Civil servant was granted seniority from date of his initial appointment in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal against order dated 4-4-1989 vide which the appellant was reinstated in service but due to undertaking given by the appellant he was not entitled to claim salary/arrears for the period he remained out of service. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Arabic Teacher on 9-7-1985. On 8-3-1986 his services were terminated. He was reinstated in service vide impugned order dated 4-4-1989 but he was not given arrears of pay. It was prayed in the appeal that he may be paid arrears of pay from 8-3-1986 to 4-4-1989 and he may be assigned seniority w.e.f. his initial appointment i.e. 9-7-1985.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and comments submitted by the respondent No.
1. The impugned order was passed on 4-4-1989. The appellant preferred the appeal to the Department after 7 years and that was rejected by the Director Education (EE), Gujranwala on 18-6-1996. The appeal before this Tribunal was preferred on 17-7-1996.
3. The appellant has not justified the delay of 7 years in filing the appeal before appellate authority/Department. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of his continuous appointment w.e.f. 9-7-1985, the appellant was not assigned seniority.
4. Vide orders dated 4-4-1989, the appellant was reinstated in service. In order dated 18-6-1996, Director Education (EE), Gujranwala treated his reinstatement as fresh appointment w.e.f. 4-4-1989 because he was not paid arrears of pay for the period he remained out of service. The appellant was reinstated on 4-8-1989. The perusal of the order dated 4-4-1989 reveals that the appellant was reinstated and he was not entitled for salary for the period he remained out of service.
5. The order of reinstatement includes all benefits of service except benefit of earned leave for the period the employee has not actually performed the duty. In this case, the appellant has given undertaking not to claim the arrears of pay for the period he remained out of job. He has not foregone his right of seniority. He is thus, entitled to seniority from the date of appointment i.e. 9-7-1985 because he was reinstated in service and reinstatement includes such benefit. The Department is, therefore, directed to assign the appellant seniority treating him continuous in service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 9-7-1985.
6. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./24/P (Sr. Trib.).????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.