2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.

Precise facts leading to this petition are that pursuant to a press advertisement dated 3-5-2009 regarding the recruitment of Baildar in BS-1 on contract basis for a period of five years, the petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee, resultantly, they were awarded appointment letters dated 16-5-2009 and they submitted their joining reports on 20-5-2009 to respondent No.1. Later on respondent No.1 issued orders of withdrawal of petitioners' appointments vide his subsequent order dated 27-6-2009 without serving any notice and providing opportunity of hearing to them. Feeling aggrieved petitioners assailed the orders of withdrawal through W.P. No.3617 of 2009/Bwp. which was allowed vide order dated 1-7-2010 reads below:

"Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that almost 17 employees, have been accommodated, by the respondents vide Writ Petition No.3618 of 2009. The respondent No.1 Dr. Ghulam Sarwar, Rape Seed Botanist present in the court states that he has no objection if the writ petition is allowed as the Department is ready to accommodate the petitioners as per rules and policy of the Government.

2. In view of the statement given by respondent No.1, the instant writ petition is allowed."

2. It is alleged by the petitioners that consequent upon orders dated 1-7-2010 respondents allowed them to continue their services and they are performing their duties; that respondent No.1 prepared statement of monthly salaries of the petitioners and forwarded to District Accounts Officer, Rahim Yar Khan/respondent No.4 for disbursement of monthly salaries but respondent No.4 refused to disburse the monthly salaries to the petitioners. It is also alleged by the petitioners that as per Notification dated 14-10-2009 issued by Government of the Punjab Services and General Administration Department (Regulation Wing) all the Administrative Authorities have been directed to regularize the services of contract employees in BS-1 to BS-15 but the respondents have not so far acted upon the said Notification for regularization of the services of petitioners; that for the above grievances, the petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to do the needful for payment of their outstanding monthly salaries from June, 2009 to June, 2010 and March, 2011 to till date. They have further prayed that respondents Nos.1 to 3 be also directed to act in accordance with the instructions given by the Government of Punjab in Notification dated 14-10-2009 regarding regularization of their services.

3. Respondents were directed to submit their parawise comments District Accounts Officer/respondent No.4 furnished his comments on 21-5-2011. The relevant extract whereof reads below:

"During the scrutiny of the bill, it was observed that the intervening period relating to withdrawal of appointment orders and canceling of the said withdrawal order i.e. 27-6-2009 to 14-7-2010 was not declared as duty or otherwise, therefore, the bill in question was returned to the department for clarification. After that the bill has not been resubmitted in this office." Respondent No.1 submitted his comments on 21-6-2011. The relevant extract whereof reads below:

"Monthly salary statement/pay bill of the petitioners regarding the period from 6/2009 to 6/2010 was submitted to the respondent No.4 but the same was returned with the objection to settle the said period."

4. After going through the above noted comments respondent No.1 was directed to appear in person before the Court along with record, who is present in the Court today.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. At the outset, respondent No.1 submits that process regarding regularization of services of the petitioners (contract employees) pursuant to the Notification dated 14-10-2009 of Government of the Punjab for regularization of the contract employees (BS-1 to BS-15) has been initiated by him and it will be finalized at the earliest. However, he was bit indecisive as regards the salaries of the petitioners about intervening period relating to withdrawal of petitioners appointments orders and cancellation of said withdrawal orders i.e. 27-6-2009 to 14-7-2010.

7. I have drawn the attention of respondent No.1 to the case of Masud ul Hassan Qureshi v. The Secretary to Government and Chief Administrator of Auqaf Punjab (1990 PLC (C.S.) 745). The relevant extract whereof reads below:

"The learned counsel for the parties have not drawn my attention to any specific Civil Service Rule, covering the situation in hand. But it seems to me that in such a case the general rule applicable is, that if a civil servant's removal from service was wrongful, as a consequential relief, he should be paid the salary for the period, he could not serve the Government, without any fault on his part, due to the illegal orders. Resultantly, the petitioner shall be entitled to his salary and others emoluments, for the period from the date of the notification till the date he attained the age of superannuation, minus the period he was engaged in some other profitable business, if any. Order accordingly."

8. In this regard reliance is also made upon a dictum of Apex Court in the case titled Asghar Ali v. District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar and another (2003 SCMR 726). The relevant extract whereof reads below:

"

2. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are that the appellant was employed as a Junior Clerk in Civil Court, Bhawalnagar and on 29-6-1994 he was compulsorily retired. He successfully challenged above order before Tribunal through Appeal, which was allowed.

3. Vide order, dated 21-4-1999, leave to appeal was granted to consider whether he was entitled to all back-benefit when his said retirement was found against law.

4. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned counsel for the respondents concedes the case of the appellant. He states that in view of the case reported as Ali Nawaz v. Pakistan Railways through Chairman Secretary and others (1999 SCMR 1873), the appellant is entitled to back benefits from the date of his removal to the date of his reinstatement. In the above reported case, the removal of the petitioner of said case was found unjustified and it was held that Service Tribunal was not right in denying back benefits in such circumstances.

5. In consequence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal only to the extent of back benefits, and order that all back benefits shall be paid to the appellant from the date of his retirement to the date of his reinstatement."

9. In the light of above cited case-law respondent No.1, in attendance, concedes the petitioners' grievance and is inclined to do the needful for disbursement of their salaries pertaining to the intervening period i.e. 27-6-2009 to 14-7-2010.

10. As a sequel to the above, this petition is allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to consider the intervening period (from withdrawal of petitioners' appointment letters and cancellation thereof i.e. 27-6-2009 to 14-7-2010) as their duty period and to pass appropriate orders in this regard for disbursement of salaries and other dues to the petitioners. H.B.T./R-57/L Petition allowed.