1990 PLP 1543 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1990. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 21/22‑2‑1989, passed in Service Appeal No. 400(R) of 1987. Muhammad Javed Rashid petitioner was employed as an inspector on work charge basis in Tames Organization w.e.f. 21‑1‑1981 and was absorbed in the Drilling and Grouting Residency of O & M Division WAPDA, Tarbela Dam Project as Pump Operator vide his appointment order dated 15‑8‑1983. He was initially placed on probation for a period of one year which was on expiry extended to one more year i.e. on two terms of six months each, the last date of expiry period was 4‑8‑1985 but on 13‑3‑1985 he was terminated according to the petitioner, on the report made by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Faisalabad, dated 20‑2‑1985. The appellant made a representation for his reinstatement but the same was turned down vide order dated 22‑9‑1987 with the following words: "We wish to inform you that no post exists at the moment against which your case could be considered:" The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order dated 22‑9‑1987, filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. This appeal, as far as the reinstatement in service of the petitioner is concerned was unanimously allowed by the Tribunal but as regards the back benefits to the petitioner is concerned, there was a difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Chairman and the learned Member of the Tribunal, the former was against and the latter was in favour of the petitioner, vide impugned judgment. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the findings of the learned Tribunal. We have observed that both the Members of the Tribunal have agreed that the termination of petitioner's service during the extended period of probation without show‑cause notice and that too on the erroneous report of the Superintendent of Police Special Branch, was declared illegal. One Hon'ble Member while accepting the appeal of the petitioner directed his reinstatement with all the consequential benefits while the Hon'ble Chairman though agreeing with the reinstatement of the petitioner disagreed on the award of the back benefit to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Hon'ble Chairman have misinformed himself that the antecedents of the petitioner arc not clean while the record shows otherwise. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view, that his contention needs consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Appeal shall be made ready on the present record, however, the parties are at liberty to file; additional documents, if any. AA./M‑1277/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.