1998 PLP 2066 (SCMR)
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, KARACHI through Chairman and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Capt. HANIF AMIN ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2066 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ. and Fazal Karim, J |
| Parties | PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, KARACHI through Chairman and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Capt. HANIF AMIN ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act (XIX of 1956)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2066 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act (XIX of 1956)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2066 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ. and Fazal Karim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2066 (SCMR) (PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, KARACHI through Chairman and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Capt. HANIF AMIN ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Basit Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1995
- Haji Muhammad Basit Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16‑2‑1995 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi in Appeal No. 112(K) of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, Regln. 83‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Departmental appeal of employee of Corporation was accepted and he was re‑instated in service but his request for back benefits was turned down‑‑‑Service Tribunal had given finding that employee having been exonerated from charges by competent Court of law on merits, he was entitled to full pay for intervening period on his re‑instatement in service‑‑‑Employee was suspended and his dismissal upon acquittal was changed to re‑instatement and seniority was restored to its original position‑‑‑Employee was, thus, entitled to full pay for the period he remained suspended after usual adjustment of amount already drawn by him in accordance with law‑‑‑No legal infirmity in judgment of Service Tribunal was pointed out so as to warrant interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.
By this petition, leave is sought to file appeal against judgment dated 16-2-1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeal of respondent is allowed with declaration that he is entitled to full pay for the period he remained suspended after usual adjustment of the amount already drawn by him according to law.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts in the background are that respondent is serving as Captain in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and was tried in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi on the charge of smuggling of gold but was found not guilty and acquitted vide judgment, dated 12th July, 1988. Competent Authority vide order dated 3-12-1988 removed him from service by invoking summary procedure under section 10 of P.I.A.C. Act, 1958. His departmental appeal was allowed and he was re-instated in service and his original position in seniority was restored but he was deprived of his two years .seniority and intervening period from removal till his re instatement was treated as leave without pay.
3. After completion of two years seniority, respondent was restored to his original position but his request of back benefits was turned down and his representation to the Chairman, P.I.A.C. was also not responded. In such circumstances he approached the Federal Service Tribunal for back benefits and P.I.A.C. filed written objections in which stance was taken that question of payment of salary/back benefits was discretionary and appellant was not entitled as a matter of right to get the same.
4. Article 83 of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, which governs the subject is reproduced as under:-- "
83. Action in respect of employees suspended from duty.
If an employee suspended under Regulation 77 is not dismissed or demoted to a lower pay scale/cadre or given an equivalent rank/cadre and the period or suspension shall be treated as on duty." In the above text the Tribunal has given finding that the respondent was exonerated of the charge by a competent Court of Law on merits and on his re instatement in service he was entitled to full pay for the intervening period. He was suspended under Regulation 77 and his dismissal upon acquittal was changed to re-instatement and seniority was restored to its original position. In A such circumstances respondent was entitled to full pay for the period he remained suspended after usual adjustment of the amount already drawn by him according to law. We are unable to see any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the Service Tribunal with which no interference is warranted. In the result leave is refused and the petition, which has no merits, is I dismissed. A.A./P-17/S Petition dismissed