1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑ Art. 199‑Payment of salary‑Services of petitioner terminated‑by respondent illegally‑Petitioner, held, deemed to be in service and entitled to salary and wages for period remaining out of job. Riaz Anwar for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing : 19th May, 1981. The petitioner was employed by the That Development Authority as Tracer on 7th September, 1953. He was promoted as Draftsman on 15th June, 1954 and was confirmed in that post on 16th December, 1954. On 24th September, 1964, he proceeded on medical leave which was sought to be extended. However, he was served with order dated 7th July, 1965 to the effect that his service has been terminated under rule 5 (ii) of the T. D. A. Service Rules, 1949. He challenged the order by means o f a civil suit filed on 8th June, 1970, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 27th April, 1976. T he petitioner, then, filed an appeal which was accepted by the lea reed Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 13th June, 1978. The respondent‑authority preferred a revision petition bearing Civil Revision No. 25/13‑79 in the High Court, which was dismissed on 27th November, 1979. In view of the appellate decree in favour of the petitioner granting him the declaration that the order of termination of his service was illegal, void and inoperative and he continued to be in service of the respondent‑authority, the petitioner applied to the latter for being put on the job and payment of his dues. Nothing of the kind was done in spite of various efforts in the administrative hierarchy. The petitioner has filed this constitutional petition asking for a direction that the respondent‑authority be refrained from preventing the petitioner from assuming his duties as Draftsman or the respondent be directed to re‑instate the petitioner in the said post and pay him the arrears of his salary from 7th July, 1965, the date of his removal from service, to-date.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent‑authorities has submitted that the T. D. A. has been dissolved and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be re‑instated in any job of the authority nor anybody is obliged to pay the arrears of the salary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has put in 25 years' service. If there is no job for him, he be paid the arrears of the salary he was kept out of the job wrongly and, this can be done by the body or the authority who has succeeded to the rights and liabilities of the dissolved body.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the employing body of the petitioner; the T. D. A., having been dissolved, the petitioner can neither be re‑instated nor paid his salary for the period he was kept out of office, loses sight of the fact that with the dissolution of the T. D. A. everything has not disappeared in the thin air. The authori ties or the body who has succeeded to the assets of the T. D. A. is liable to discharge the liability of the T. D. A. as well.

5. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the respondent‑authorities are directed to give effect to the decree of the learned Additional District Judge as upheld by the High Court with the result of termination of the petitioner's service being illegal he would be deemed to be in service and entitled to be paid the usual salary and wages. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner has served for 25 years; he may be retired, let that be done in the respondent‑authorities are not in a position to re‑instate the petitioner and pay his salary for the relevant period. This petition is thus allowed with costs, Petition allowed.