2007 PLP 296 (SCMR)
UMER SAID and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE) and others — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 296 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ |
| Parties | UMER SAID and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE) and others — Respondent |
| Primary Law | North West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 296 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 296 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 296 (SCMR) (UMER SAID and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE) and others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Afridi Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mir Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all cases).
- Khushdil Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. for Respondents (in all cases).
- Date of hearing: 16th August, 2006.
- 3. The learned Additional Advocate-General informed that the petitioners have accordingly been adjusted with effect from 18-10-2004. Be that as it may, the fact remains that their readjustment was a fresh appointment for all intents and purposes, having not accounted for the period between 1997 to 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18-5-2004 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar passed in Appeals Nos.2460, 2461 and 2462 of 1997).
S. 4
Reinstatement without back-benefits
Appointment against land grants
Civil servants were class-IV employees in education department and their services were terminated for the reason that they did not donate lands to the department
Service Tribunal set aside the termination orders of civil servants and directed the authorities to adjust them as and when vacancy would exist
Plea raised by civil servants was that after setting aside of termination order, they should have been reinstated with back-benefits
Policy of making appointments against land grants was tantamount to sale of public office for property
Such appointments were not only against the Constitution but also were not conducive to public interest and were' void ab inito--Once it was held that termination of civil servants was void ab initio, they became entitled to reinstatement with back-benefits and could not, despite such decree, be left at the mercy of department for adjustment, which might or might not occur or which might or might not be possible
Conclusion arrived at by Service Tribunal was unlawful and amounted to giving no relief to successful civil servants
Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal
Supreme Court reinstated the civil servants with effect from the date of their removal with back-benefits
Appeal was allowed. 1993 SCMR 1287 fol.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Umer Said, Yousaf Khan and Ali Akhtar having been appointed as Class-IV employees in the Education Department on 1-9-1995, 15-6-1993 and 17-4-1993 respectively, their services were terminated on 19-7-1997 on the only ground that they were not the donors of land to the department. Through the impugned judgment dated 18-5-2004, the learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal Peshawar accepted their appeals against such termination but directed the department to adjust the appellants against Class IV vacancies, as and when occur.
2. The department has not challenged the judgment aforesaid but present appellants have come to this Court seeking leave to appeal on the simple ground that once their terminations were declared void ab initio, they were bound to be reinstated with all back-benefits.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General informed that the petitioners have accordingly been adjusted with effect from 18-10-2004. Be that as it may, the fact remains that their readjustment was a fresh appointment for all intents and purposes, having not accounted for the period between 1997 to 2004.
4. This Court in 1993 SCMR 1287 has categorically observed that the policy of making appointments against land grants is tantamount to the sale of public office for property, and further, that it was not only against the Constitution but also not conductive to public interest. We reiterate that such appointments are void ab initio. Amazingly, in the instant cases, the competent authority has, in flagrant disregard of the aforesaid verdict of this Court, had terminated the services of the petitioners because they could not donate lands to procure the job.
5. Once it is held that the termination of an employee, is void ab initio, they become entitled to reinstatement with back-benefits and cannot, despite such decree, be left at the mercy of the department for adjustment, which may or may not occur or which may or may not be possible. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal was, therefore, unlawful and amounted to giving no relief to the successful appellants. Consequently, the petitions in hand, after conversion into appeals, are hereby accepted and the petitioners are reinstated with effect from the date of their removal, with back-benefits. M.H./U-5/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.