2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

GULZAR AHMED, J.

By this petition, petitioners seek implementation of judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal and the payment of back-benefits to them.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Federal Service Tribunal through its judgment has directed the petitioners to be reinstated in service with all back-benefits and that such judgment of Federal Service Tribunal was maintained by Hon'ble Supreme Court and that though the petitioners have been reinstated but they have been denied payment of back-benefits by the respondents. Learned counsel has further contended that one Aurangzeb Pathan was also amongst the appellants before the Federal Service Tribunal and on his reinstatement, he has been paid back-benefits by the respondents but such payment has been denied to the petitioners which amounts to discrimination.

3. Mr. Rizwan Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the Tribunal has allowed holding of fresh inquiry against the petitioners and such inquiry being held, the petitioners were imposed penalty of censure. He admitted that Aurangzeb Pathan has been paid back-benefits.

4. Learned Standing Counsel stated that matter between the petitioners and respondents and the Federal Government has no interest in the matter.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel and have gone through the record.

6. Through two judgments both dated 29-1-2005, in which the petitioners were appellants along with other employees of respondent including one Aurangzeb Pathan, the Federal Service Tribunal has allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to be reinstated in service from the date of their termination with all back-benefits with liberty to(?) respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if it is(?) desired. The respondents had challenged these judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Petitions Nos.1409 to 1418 of 2005 and vide judgment dated 26-1-200(?) such petitions were dismissed. The respondents appearing to have initiated fresh inquiry against the petitioners. Vide two office orders dated 30-9-2006 the respondents have imposed the penalty of censure upon the petitioners Nos.(?) and 3 and through office order dated 18-7-2006 similar penalty was imposed upon respondent No.2.

7. In the first place, it may be noted that the payment of back-benefits to the petitioners were not made dependent upon the result of fresh inquiry by the Tribunal and such judgment having been maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no justification for the respondents to have not paid back-benefits to the petitioners. The penalty of censure by no means can deprive the petitioners from payment of back-benefits as it is merely a warning and that too has application from the date the office order was passed. The payment of back-benefits to Aurangzeb Pathan who was also amongst the appellants before the Federal Service Tribunal with the petitioners having been admitted, therefore, for this reason also there is no reason for denying the payment of back-benefits to the petitioners. The Tribunal has decided the appeal as back as in the year 2005 which was maintained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2006. It was incumbent upon the respondents to have paid back-benefits to the petitioners. Non-payment of such back-benefits was altogether an act of respondent of robbing the petitioners of their right accrued under court order.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 21-9-2011 by a short order this petition was allowed with directions to respondents to pay back-benefits to the petitioners within a period of two months. Above are the reasons for the said short order. K.M.Z./S-2/K Petition accepted.