1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PUNNU KHAN Versus CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan, Chairman and Khawaja Abdul Hameed, Member |
| Parties | PUNNU KHAN Versus CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Azad J&K bench comprising: Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan, Chairman and Khawaja Abdul Hameed, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PUNNU KHAN Versus CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Rafiq Mahmood for Appellant.
- Raja Zafar Abbas, Perokar Forests Department for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Compulsory retirement‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Employee who was re‑instated to his original post with all back benefits after his compulsory retirement, had submitted that it was not clear from order of his re‑instatement whether he had been re‑instated from date of order of his compulsory retirement‑‑ Apprehension of employee was unfounded in view of the fact that order of re instatement clearly stated that reinstatement of employee was against post which had become vacant as a result of retirement of another employee‑‑ Word "re‑instatement" otherwise meant restoration of person to a position from which he had been removed‑‑‑Employee, thus would be deemed to have been restored to that position which he was occupying or enjoying on date when order of his compulsory retirement was made.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Compulsory retirement‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Employee who was re‑instated to his original post with all back benefits after his compulsory retirement, had submitted that it was not clear from order of his re‑instatement whether he had been re‑instated from date of order of his compulsory retirement‑‑ Apprehension of employee was unfounded in view of the fact that order of re instatement clearly stated that reinstatement of employee was against post which had become vacant as a result of retirement of another employee‑‑ Word "re‑instatement" otherwise meant restoration of person to a position from which he had been removed‑‑‑Employee, thus would be deemed to have been restored to that position which he was occupying or enjoying on date when order of his compulsory retirement was made. Sardar Rafiq Mahmood for Appellant. Raja Zafar Abbas, Perokar Forests Department for Respondents. RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑The appellant had prayed for setting aside the order of his compulsory retirement and restoration to the original post with all back benefits. During the hearing of the case it transpired that the appellant has been reinstated by the orders of competent authority. On 7‑8‑1993 the Legal Advisor Forests Department confirmed that the appellant had been reinstated. The appellant's counsel on 23‑8‑1993 produced the photostat copy of the order of the reinstatement of the appellant. From the perusal of the Order No. 44 issued under No. 3,884‑86/92 dated 20‑2‑1992 it becomes clear that the appellant was reinstated against a post which became vacant on account of retirement of Gul Nawaz, Forests Guard. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not clear from the order whether the appellant has been reinstated from the date of the order of his compulsory retirement. The apprehension of the learned counsel is unfounded. The order of reinstatement clearly states that the reinstatement of the appellant is against the post which became vacant as a result of the retirement of the Gul Nawaz, Forest Guard. The word `reinstatement' means the restoration of the person to a position from which he had been removed. In this view of the matter, the appellant shall be deemed to have been restored to that position which he was occupying or enjoying on the date when the order of his compulsory retirement was made and thus he is entitled to all back benefits, The present appeal has become infructuous on account of the reinstatement of the appellant by the orders of the competent authority and is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./225/Sr.A Order accordingly.