1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). Shamus‑ud‑Din, Patwari, has filed this miscellaneous application for implementation of judgment passed by this Tribunal on 29th June, 1980. A report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, which has been received and carefully perused by us. The grievance of the petitioner through his miscellaneous application is that the Tribunal vide his judgment dated 29th June, 1980, set aside the order of his compulsory retirement from the post of Patwari from 24th June, 1975 passed by the Settlement Officer, Sialkot. Accord ing to the petitioner, on his reinstatement, on the demand of the depart ment he submitted an affidavit to the effect that during the interim period of retirement, i.e. from 1st January, 1978 to 29th June, 1980, the petitioner had been earning his livelihood by petition writing outside the District Courts premises. According to the petitioner on account of this infor mation so laid by him, the competent authority had refused to give him the emoluments pertaining to the said interim period. 2. Learned Deputy Commissioner vide his letter, dated 11th February, 1985 addressed to the Registrar, Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, has given the entire history of this case and has submitted that he has per sonally verified that the petitioner has been indulging in lucrative practice as a regular Deed‑Writer and thus in view of the above he would not be entitled to the emoluments for the period he remained out of service. Learned Deputy Commissioner has put lot of emphasis on the fact that the petitioner has given contradictory affidavits in this case and was in the habit of doing so in the past. He has referred to his earlier A.C.Rs to say that he was in the habit of submitting incorrect documents. According to the learned Deputy Commissioner, his contention that he used to write applications while sitting on the footpath was also not acceptable because, as stated above, he was a regular Deed‑Writer and had regular lucrative job. According to him, it was not a right but favour to pay a person :o reinstated like him his arrears for‑the period he remained out of service and also it is against public policy to allow him to reap double advantage in case, he is allowed to be entitled to be paid for period from 3rd March, 1978 to 29th June, 1980. We have no reason to disbelieve the report of the learned Deputy Commissioner and find that the petitioner during the said period, was earning a lot of money. 3. We are of considered opinion that the reason given by the learned Deputy Commissioner are cogent as it has been proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had been earning lot of money during the period he remained out of service, by working as a Deed‑Writer. 4. The petition is dismissed as being without any Merit. A. E. Petition dismissed.