2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
YAQOOB SHAH Versus SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Hamid Ali Mirza and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ |
| Parties | YAQOOB SHAH Versus SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P and others |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 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 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Hamid Ali Mirza and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (YAQOOB SHAH Versus SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Abul Wahab, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th January, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23rd February, 2001 in Appeal No.2078 of 1997 passed by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar).
S. 4
Civil servant was reinstated in service by Service Tribunal but back-benefits were not awarded to him
Grievance of civil servant was that his other colleagues were reinstated with back benefits
On the basis of principle of consistency, the civil servant was also entitled to the same treatment with regard to back-benefits and thereby he could not be discriminated
Nothing was available on record that the civil servant worked for gain during the period of his removal
On the contrary, the civil servant had prayed his back-benefits even in his appeal before Service Tribunal
Service Tribunal erred in not granting back benefits to the civil servant considering that there was nothing on the conduct of civil servant which warranted his removal from service
Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was modified to the extent that the civil servant was entitled to back-benefits
Appeal was allowed. Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another PLD 1990 SC 787 and Pakistan Automobile Corporation Ltd. through Chairman v. Mansoor-ul-Haque and others 2004 SCMR 1308 ref.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
This civil appeal with leave of this Court dated 22nd June, 2001 is directed,_ against the judgment, dated 23rd February, 2001 (Yaqoob Shah v. Secretary, Board of. Revenue N.-W.F.P. and others) passed by learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby the said appeal was allowed, thereby the appellant was reinstated in service but so far the back-benefits claimed by him, the same were declined hence, the present appeal.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the other employees who were removed from service or their appeal before the Service Tribunal they were reinstated along with back-benefits but the appellant has been discriminated in that respect, therefore, he is entitled to back-benefits, considering that there was no fault on his part whereby he could have been removed from service. He has placed reliance upon Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another PLD 1990 SC
787. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that because the appellant could not bring anything on record that he did not work for gain during the period of removal from service, therefore, he is not entitled to the back-benefits. He has placed reliance upon Pakistan Automobile Corporation Ltd. through Chairman v. Mansoor-ul-Haque and others 2004 SCMR 1308.
4. We do find merit and substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and do not rind any merit and force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that other employees who were removed from service on their reinstatement they were granted back-benefits. In the circumstances on the principles of consistency the appellant would also be entitled to same treatment with regard to back-benefits and thereby he cannot be discriminated. Besides there is nothing on the record that the appellant worked for gain during the period of his removal. On the contrary the appellant has prayed for his back-benefits even in his appeal before the Service Tribunal. We find that the Service Tribunal has erred in not granting the back-benefits to the appellant considering that there was nothing on the conduct of the appellant which warranted his removal from service.
5. In the circumstances the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to back-benefits, consequently, the appeal is allowed. M.H./Y-22/S Order accordingly.