2019 PLC(CS) 333

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 333 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MAQBOOL AHMAD QURESHI
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and Justice
S. 17, Proviso II---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 18, Proviso II---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act (XVIII of 1973), S. 17, Proviso II---Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 16, Proviso II---Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974), S.17, Proviso II---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Order of dismissal, removal from service or reduction in rank set aside---Entitlement to back benefits/ arrears on reinstatement---Plea of appellant before the Federal Shariat Court was that civil servants who were dismissed and or removed from service did not render any service during the intervening period till their restoration and or reinstatement; that Proviso II to S.17 of Civil Servants Act, 1973, Proviso II to S.18 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973), Proviso II to S.17 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973), Proviso II to S.16 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974), and Proviso II to S.17 of Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, which provided the concerned authority with the discretion to grant back benefits on reinstatement, were misused and abused by the reinstated civil servants, therefore such provisions, were repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and should not be allowed to remain on the statute book---Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition by holding that the impugned provisions did not provide for automatic grant of arrears of the intervening period between dismissal/removal/reduction in rank and restoration to the original position; that the authority vested under the law to make such an order, depending upon law, facts and circumstances, may determine, inter alia, question relating to reinstatement, etc., including restoration to original position, in seniority , cadre, and post, treatment of intervening period as duty or on leave and its kind---Held, that appellant did not cite any Nass of the Holy Quran and Sunnah of Holy Prophet (PBUH), which was sine qua non to seek declaration of the kind sought by the appellant---No exception could be taken to the view formed by the Federal Shariat Court in the impugned judgment---Ayah 188 of Surah Baqrah [2-188: Holy Quran] relied upon by the appellant, was not relevant to the point in issue nor the appellant was able to explain the same---Shariat Appeal was dismissed in circumstances with costs of Rs.10,000.