1998 PLP 257 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD, LINEMAN‑I‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 257 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD, LINEMAN‑I‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 257 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 257 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 257 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD, LINEMAN‑I‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1997.
- Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑4‑1996 of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 384‑L of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 17(1‑B)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Employee of WAPDA‑‑‑Compulsory retirement from service‑‑‑Employee's departmental appeal was accepted to the extent that he was re‑instated in service but period intervening between his compulsory retirement and reinstatement was treated as extraordinary leave without pay and without back benefits‑‑‑Employee's appeal before Service Tribunal claiming back benefits for period in question, did not meet with success‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Employee's contention was that impugned order of Appellate Authority withholding pay and back benefits for the period during which his appeal remained pending was wholly unjustified; that his appeal having been accepted, he was entitled to all back benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement up to the date of his re‑instatement‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted to consider contentions raised by employee.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Petitioner, a Line-man-I in WAPDA was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 22-5-1993. He filed departmental appeal on 11-7-1993 which was accepted by the Chairman Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala vide order dated 2-11-1995 whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service but the period intervening between his compulsory retirement and reinstatement was treated as extraordinary leave without pay and without back benefits. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the refusal of the appellate authority to grant him pay and back benefits for the period in question in an appeal before the Service Tribunal but with no better result as his appeal has been dismissed by the learned Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 11-4-1996/7-2-1996. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has submitted that the petitioner filed the departmental appeal within two months of his compulsory retirement. The appeal was, however, not decided by the competent authority for a pretty long time. Petitioner, therefore, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a direction for disposal of his appeal which direction was issued by the High Court on 1-12-1994. Notwithstanding the order of the High Court, the appellate authority in the department failed to decide the petitioner's appeal. Petitioner, therefore, had to approach the High Court once more for initiating contempt proceedings against the departmental authority. It was only thereafter that his appeal was disposed of/accepted by the appellate authority on 2-11-1995. Basing himself on these facts, the learned counsel sought to contend that the impugned order of the appellate authority withholding the pay and back benefits for the period during which petitioner's appeal remained pending with him was wholly unjustified. In the submission of learned counsel, the appeal of the petitioner having been accepted, he was entitled to all the back benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement up to the date of his reinstatement.
3. The afore-noted contention of the learned counsel needs consideration, Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to the petitioner and it is directed that since the matter relates to the emoluments of the petitioner, appeal may be heard on the present record within three months. Parties, of course, are at liberty to file any documents, which they wish to bring on record. A.A./N-1/S Leave granted.