1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). --Saleem Aziz Khan, has moved a miscellaneous application that the Judgment of this Tribunal No.167/1630 of 1982, decided on 3-1-1983 has not been implemented. The following is the operative para. 8 of this Judgment :- "

8. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that the impugned order No.114/CFM, dated 26-12-1981 of Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan has not been validly and lawfully passed and is set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service from the date of his removal i.e., 29-9-1981. The period from the date of his removal from service to that of reinstatement will be treated as leave of kind due."

2. The applicant submitted an application to the Department for the grant of leave to him in respect of the aforesaid period. After lengthy processing of the case the department ultimately granted leave to the applicant vide order dated 18-2-1985 by the Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan as under :- (i) 293 days earned leave on full pay on medical certificates from 29-9-1981 to 18-7-1982. (ii) The remaining period from 19-7-1982 to 7-2-1983 leave without pay. The applicant is not satisfied with the grant of leave to him for the period from 19-7-1982 to 7-2-1983 as leave without pay. He claims that the leave with pay be sanctioned as "leave not due" under Rule 11 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1981 for the remaining period of 204 days.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney/ Conservator of Forests, Multan considers that the claim of the applicant for the grant of "leave not due" is neither covered by the judgment of this Tribunal nor under the rules itself. It has been contended by them that this Tribunal has ordered that the applicant be given "leave of the kind due." As regards his entitlement to grant "leave not due" they have relied upon the sub-rules (4) of Rule 11 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1983, which reads as follows :- "(4) Such leave shall be granted apparently and to the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority but it shall not be admissible to temporary civil servants". They have therefore, submitted that the "Leave not due" as claimed by the appellant is not admissible to him under the above provision of the Rules, being a temporary civil servant.

4. This is not any issue that the applicant is a temporary civil servant or not because it has been admitted before us by the applicant that he has not so far been confirmed. Moreover, the applicant has not been able to produce any other rules or provisions under which he, being a temporary civil servant is entitled to grant of "leave not due".

5. We have heard the parties and have also consulted our judgment as well as the revised leave rules, 1981. We are inclined to agree with the Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan/the learned Deputy District Attorney that the claim of the applicant is not covered by the judgment of this Tribunal or the aforesaid rule 11(4) being a temporary civil servant, he has been specifically excluded from the application of the rule

11. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is not tenable and we find that the respondent i.e., Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan has implemented the judgment of this Tribunal in letter and spirit by allowing the applicant 293 days of earned leave on full pay. The miscellaneous application is disposed of accordingly. The above order be communicated to the parties. M.Y.H./105-Sr.P???????? Application disposed of.