2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. IMRAN MASOOD Versus ZONAL HEAD (G&P) STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE ZONE, Lahore and 2 others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members |
| Parties | Dr. IMRAN MASOOD Versus ZONAL HEAD (G&P) STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE ZONE, Lahore and 2 others |
| Primary Law | State Life Insurance Employees Service Regulations, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: State Life Insurance Employees Service Regulations, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. IMRAN MASOOD Versus ZONAL HEAD (G&P) STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE ZONE, Lahore and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Abdul Hameed for Appellant.
- Rana Waqas Latif for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Regl. 22
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Full back-benefits
Order terminating services of appellant, was set aside in appeal by Service Tribunal and appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service with back-benefits
Back-benefits as granted to appellant by Service Tribunal, having not been paid, appellant had to file present appeal
Relief as prayed for by appellant had already been granted by the Authority to an evenly placed other employee, but appellant had been discriminated and denied that relief
Effect
Appellant was entitled to the same treatment as had been meted out to other employee
By treating intervening period as leave without pay, judgment passed earlier by Service Tribunal, had been violated by the department
Back benefits, would include annual increments, payment of bonus and consideration for promotion and all said benefits were denied to the appellant
Department, in that manner had not correctly interpreted judgment of Service Tribunal
Accepting appeal, department was directed to decide claim of appellant for grant of pay for intervening period and other benefits which were legally due, would also be granted to appellant.
Judgment & Decree
MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).
The services of appellant Dr. Imran Masood, a Deputy Manager in the service of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, were terminated on 4-2-2000 under Regulation 22 of State Life Employees Service Regulations, 1973. This order was challenged by him in this Tribunal by filing Appeal No.74(L)(C.E.) of 2000. The order of termination was set aside by this Bench by accepting the appeal vide its judgment, dated 22-7-2003. The appellant was reinstated into service with back benefits. It appears that back benefits were not paid to the appellant compelling him to file the present appeal.
2. After the acceptance of Appeal No.74(L)(C.E.) of 2000 by this Tribunal the respondent passed a fresh order on 22-7-2003. By this order the intervening period was treated as E.O.L. The grievance of the appellant is that the said period could not be treated as period of leave without pay. He has also prayed that increments be allowed to him for the intervening period as has been .done in the case of his other colleagues. The final relief prayed for in the appeal is with regard to payment of bonus and consideration for pro forma promotion in the cadre of Manager.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is submitted that the appeal is not maintainable. Another objection is taken that appeal is time-barred. On merits it is stated that the judgment of the Tribunal, dated 22-7-2003 had been implemented in letter and spirit and the present appeal is not competent.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide letter, dated 1-7-2004 relief as prayed for by the appellant has been granted to an evenly placed employee namely Malik Muhammad Tanvir Awan but the appellant has been discriminated and denied that relief. We have perused this letter and hold that appellant is entitled to the same treatment as had been meted out to Malik Muhammad Tanvir Awan. We have reinstated the appellant with back benefits. By treating the intervening period as leave without pay the judgment was violated by the respondents. Back benefits include annual increments, payment of bonus and consideration for promotion. All these benefits were denied to the appellant. In this manner the judgment of the Tribunal was not correctly interpreted by the respondents.
6. For the above reasons we accept the appeal and direct the respondents to decide the claim of the appellant for grant of pay for the intervening period and other benefits in the light of the case of Malik Muhammad Tanvir Awan. All the benefits which are legally due to the appellant shall be granted to him. The appeal is not only admitted to regular hearing but is also accepted in the above terms.
7. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./145/FST Appeal accepted.