2000 P L (PLP)
ALI NAWAZ Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman/Secretary and others
| Citation | 2000 P L (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | ALI NAWAZ Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman/Secretary and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P L (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P L (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P L (PLP) (ALI NAWAZ Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman/Secretary and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Aslam Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5/Caveators.
- Date of hearing: 10th July, 1998.
- Aslam Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5/Caveators.
- 3. After hearing the petitioner in person and Mr. Aslam Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court, learned Legal Advisor to the Railways, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in denying back benefits to the petitioners, particularly when it is an admitted fact that no appeal has been filed by the respondent‑Railways against the impugned order dated 21‑5‑1996, whereby the. petitioner has been reinstated in service, moreso when the learned Legal Advisor has frankly conceded that during the period of his removal and reinstatement the petitioner was not gainfully employed anywhere.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-5-1996 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 370(L) of 1995).
Entitlement to back benefits
Civil servant was removed from service on charge of misconduct
Service Tribunal, on appeal, found that charge had not been proved and ordered his reinstatement
Back benefits from date of removal from service up to date of reinstatement were, however, denied to civil servant
No appeal against order of Service Tribunal reinstating civil servant had been filed by Authority and it was conceded that civil servant was not gainfully employed elsewhere during period of his removal from service
Service Tribunal, in circumstances, was not right in denying back benefits. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Aslam Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5/Caveators. Date of hearing: 10th July, 1998. IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.‑,This petition leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21‑5‑1996 passed by the Federal Ser: ice Tribunal, Lahore hereafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No370 L of 1995.
2. The petitioner is a Railway's employee. He was removed from service with effect from 13‑7‑1995 on the charges of misconduct tin appeal, the charges levelled against him were found not proved and consequently he was reinstated in service without payment of arrears for the period from the date he was removed to the date of his joining the department vide impugned judgment, dated 21st May, 1996. Admittedly, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges against him and not for technical reasons or by granting him benefit of insufficiency of evidence. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus: "We have looked into all the aspects of the case and clumsy reaction of the department by removing him from service with effect from 13‑7‑1995 when he had asked for reply to be given by 14‑7‑1995. The action taken i.e. the removal of the appellant from service is not justified when he is not given even time to explain his case by the ruthless action by the department. "
3. After hearing the petitioner in person and Mr. Aslam Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court, learned Legal Advisor to the Railways, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in denying back benefits to the petitioners, particularly when it is an admitted fact that no appeal has been filed by the respondent‑Railways against the impugned order dated 21‑5‑1996, whereby the. petitioner has been reinstated in service, moreso when the learned Legal Advisor has frankly conceded that during the period of his removal and reinstatement the petitioner was not gainfully employed anywhere.
4. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and allowing the same set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 21‑5‑1996 to the extent of denying the appellant back benefits.
5. The result is that the appellant shall be paid back benefits from the date of his removal to the date of his reinstatement. No costs. H.B.T./A‑126/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.