1998 PLP 2071 (SCMR)
ABDUL WAHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2071 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2071 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2071 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2071 (SCMR) (ABDUL WAHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riazul Haq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1995.
- Riazul Haq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 6‑6‑1995, passed in Appeal No. 1/P of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Service Tribunal remanded case of civil servant for re examination‑‑‑Cabinet Division, in the meanwhile, directed re‑instatement of all persons in service who were appointed during specified period but their services were subsequently terminated‑‑‑Civil servant was, thus, re‑instated in service, but he was not allowed back benefits‑‑‑Service Tribunal refused to allow back benefits to civil servant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal while reinstating another similarly placed civil servant, had allowed back benefits to him but the same had been refused to civil servant which amounted to discriminatory treatment to petitioner's case‑‑‑Contention raised by civil servant would require examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The Petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 6--6-1995 whereby service appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the Customs Department in February, 1990 on the recommendations of Placement Bureau. His services were subsequently terminated on 2-1-1991. The petitioner after exhausting departmental remedy approached the Service Tribunal which remanded the case on 21-1-1993 to the departmental authority with the direction to re-examine the case of the petitioner. It appears that in the meantime the Cabinet Division took the decision on 22-11-1993 which directed reinstatement of all persons in service who were appointed during the period from 2-12-1988 to 6-8-1990 but their services were subsequently terminated. The petitioner was, accordingly, reinstated in service on 8-12-1993. However, the petitioner was not allowed the back benefits. The petitioner, accordingly, made a representation to the Departmental Authority for allowing him back benefits which was declined. The petitioner then filed service appeal which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment against which he is seeking leave to appeal. This Court issued notice to learned Deputy Attorney-General on 15-11-1995 to-appear in the case and state whether back benefits are provided to those Government servants who were employed through the placement Bureau and whose services were terminated and who have now been reinstated in service under the decision of Cabinet Division. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has not appeared in spite of service of notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the decision of learned Service Tribunal dated 16-10-1993 in the case of another employee of Custom Department, Najeebullah Khan, who was allowed back benefits by the learned Service Tribunal while ordering his reinstatement in service. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that like the petitioner Najeebullah Khan was also appointed through Placement Bureau but his services were later terminated and now he has been reinstated in service. However, while in the case of Najibullah, the learned Tribunal allowed the back benefits, the same was disallowed to the petitioner which amounts to discriminatory treatment to the case of petitioner. The contention requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. A.A./A-67/S Leave granted.