1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mst. SHAKILA AKHTAR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N.‑W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Ma1ik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman and Sahibzada Muhammad Fridoon Khan, Member |
| Parties | Mst. SHAKILA AKHTAR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION and 2 others |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
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 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N.‑W.F.P. bench comprising: Ma1ik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman and Sahibzada Muhammad Fridoon Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. SHAKILA AKHTAR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzada Shahpur Jan for Appellant.
- Muhammad Latif Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Suspension‑‑Appellant placed under suspension before her compulsory retirement and subsequently her suspension was treated as absence from duty after lapse of sufficient time and consequently she was denied benefits accruing to a suspended Government servant‑ Record showing that appellant proved her claim for payment of emoluments during period of suspension and had participated in inquiry and had not received any emoluments of said period which was treated as absence from duty without any reason‑‑Held, period of suspension could not be treated as absence from duty and appellant was entitled to receive emoluments which were admissible to a suspended Government official. Date of institution: 3rd August, 1987.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Mst. Shakila Akhtar the appellant feeling dis‑satisfied with the impugned order vide which her suspension period was treated as absence from duty and consequently she was denied the benefits accruing to a suspended Government servant, she has moved this Tribunal through the present appeal alleging therein that while serving as C. T. Teacher in Government Girls High School, Shabqadar Fort, she was compulsorily retired from service. She was placed under suspension with effect from 11‑10‑1984 to 1‑7‑1986 before her retirement from service. She then claimed the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension altered into absence from duty, without any reason. He was not competent to do so after a lapse of sufficient time to her detriment. A right accruing to a defaulting person cannot be withdrawn. Lateron she approached the higher authority but in vain hence the present appeal. The claim of the appellant was vehemently resisted by the respondents on the ground that nowhere on the record the suspension order exists. It was clarified and corrected later on. She remained absent from duty throughout the said period and question of suspension in the circumstances does not arise. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that she was suspended from service and under the rules, she is entitled to the benefits. On the other hand learned Special Government Pleader argued that since she was not suspended from service and on the discovery of mistake the amending order was made and the suspension was altered into absence from duty. We have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and have come to the conclusion that after such a long period the suspension cannot be altered into absence from duty in order to deprive an aggrieved person from the benefits which have accrued to him/her. If a person is absent from duty he can be proceeded against ex parte, but in the instant case the record reveals that she did participate in the enquiry. The record is silent as to whether she received any emoluments of the said period or not. Later on she claimed the same and it is quite obvious that under the rules, a suspended Government official is entitled to the same. It is, therefore, clear that she had proved her claim and we accordingly accept the present appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room. M.Y.H./82/Sr.N Appeal allowed.