compulsory retirement converted to reinstatement

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 1073 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SAIF ULLAH
Side Opponent : DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, POSTAL SERVICES, FAISALABAD
S. 3---Post Office Manual, Vol. VI, R. 590(3)---compulsory retirement converted to reinstatement in service with stoppage of five years increments---Postmaster---Allegation of facilitating commission of fraud, cheating by fabrication, dishonesty and embezzlement---Admittedly there was no allegation against the Postmaster of having embezzled any amount and on the contrary, there was admission on the part of his co-accused regarding the said embezzled amount which he had admitted and promised to return in part payments---At most the failure of the Postmaster to get signatures in hand to hand cash book could have been considered to be a lapse on his part falling within the parameter of inefficiency, but it could not be considered to be of fraud, forgery or embezzlement entailing the major penalty of removal from service resulting in his compulsory retirement ---Supreme Court converted the punishment of compulsory retirement of the Postmaster to that of stoppage of five years increments following his reinstatement in service, however back benefits were not granted.

Citation Name : 2016 PLC 37 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-SINDH
Side Appellant : HYDERABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY through Chief Executive Officer
Side Opponent : MAQSOOD AHMED
Ss. 34 & 48---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.15(3)(d)(e)---compulsory retirement / dismissal from service---reinstatement ---Claim for full back benefits---Employer, compulsorily retired the employee due to his long absence for about four months from duty, bringing his absence as leave without pay---Subsequently, employee was dismissed from service on allegation that he had received amount from a person for getting him appointed as Lineman---Grievance application filed by the employee against his compulsory retirement and dismissal from service, was accepted by the Labour Court; and employee was reinstated with full back benefits---Validity---Employer had pressed appeal only to the extent of full back benefits, contending that employee had failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of his removal---Contention was misconceived as the employer in its written reply, did not deny the claim of employee that he was not gainfully employed during the period of his removal from service---Statement of employee, not challenged or rebutted by the employer, was sufficient to prove the negative fact---No exception could be taken to the order of the Labour Court granting full back benefits to the employee, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2016 SCMR 1430 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SAIF ULLAH
Side Opponent : DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, POSTAL SERVICES, FAISALABAD
S. 3---Post Office Manual, Vol. VI, R. 590(3)---compulsory retirement converted to reinstatement in service with stoppage of five years increments---Postmaster---Allegation of facilitating commission of fraud, cheating by fabrication, dishonesty and embezzlement---Admittedly there was no allegation against the Postmaster of having embezzled any amount and on the contrary, there was admission on the part of his co-accused regarding the said embezzled amount which he had admitted and promised to return in part payments---At most the failure of the Postmaster to get signatures in hand to hand cash book could have been considered to be a lapse on his part falling within the parameter of inefficiency, but it could not be considered to be of fraud, forgery or embezzlement entailing the major penalty of removal from service resulting in his compulsory retirement ---Supreme Court converted the punishment of compulsory retirement of the Postmaster to that of stoppage of five years increments following his reinstatement in service, however back benefits were not granted.

Citation Name : 2016 PLC 465 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TAUFIQ KHAN
Side Opponent : MULTAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY LIMITED, MULTAN
Ss. 33 & 47---compulsory retirement ---Grievance petition---reinstatement with grant of 50% back benefits---Claim for full back benefits---Employee, who was compulsory retired from service; was reinstated in service by the Labour Court on filing grievance petition by the employee granting 50% back benefits for the period he remained out of job due to his compulsory retirement ---Employee, claimed full back benefits contending that during period of his compulsory retirement he remained out of job and did not perform any gainful job, therefore, was entitled to fell back benefits---Labour Court, did not give any reason for grant of 50% back benefits---Impugned judgment was set aside to that extent---Employee was allowed full back benefits for the period he remained out of job due to order for his compulsory retirement , till his reinstatement in service.

Citation Name : 2016 PLC(CS) 928 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
Side Opponent : DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, FAISALABAD
S. 12(ii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---compulsory retirement ---reinstatement of civil servant---Recovery of interest on the amount received by the employee due to such retirement ---Scope---Petitioner was compulsory retired from service in disciplinary proceedings but he was reinstated in service by converting the same into stoppage of one increment for two years by the Service Tribunal---Petitioner was directed to pay interest on the amount which he received due to retirement ---Validity---Petitioner had returned the entire amount which he received---reinstatement of government servant retired under S.12(ii) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 would be conditional to return of pension, gratuity and commuted value of pension drawn by him which had to be treated as advance to him and would be recoverable along with interest at the rate applicable at the time of reinstatement ---Judgment passed by the Service Tribunal did not reveal any such recovery of interest which had excluded the petitioner for the purposes of recovery of interest---Judgment of Service Tribunal would be operated prospectively and would be applied to the civil servant on the date when it was announced---No payment of interest was mentioned in the judgment of Service Tribunal and the same could not be recovered from the petitioner---Nothing was on record that at the time of receiving amount petitioner committed that he would pay it back with interest at the event of his reinstatement in service---Authorities were restrained from recovering the amount of interest from the petitioner as he had paid back the entire received amount---Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2016 PLC(CS) 928 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
Side Opponent : DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, FAISALABAD
S. 12(ii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---compulsory retirement ---reinstatement ---Recovery of amount paid in lieu of such retirement ---Scope---reinstatement of government servant retired under S.12(ii) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 would be conditional to return of pension, gratuity and commuted value of pension drawn by him which had to be treated as advance to him and would be recoverable along with interest at the rate applicable at the time of reinstatement ---Government should not sustain any loss for any payment made on account of inflation of money which was subsequently found to have made unnecessary---Such event might arise either when appeal against compulsory retirement was allowed by the departmental authority or by the Service Tribunal---Order permitting reinstatement would have to be followed while ascertaining as to whether any interest was specifically mentioned as recoverable from such employee---Such situation might also arise when government servant retired before its superannuation was subsequently reinstated in service---Government servant would not be able to claim interest on the delayed payment of his post retirement benefit as said amount was to be paid at the time when it was found payable.

Citation Name : 2014 SCMR 1843 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SOHAIL AHMED USMANI
Side Opponent : DIRECTOR-GENERAL PAKISTAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
reinstatement ---Back benefits, entitlement to---Delay in completing and submitting most immediate and priority work---Appellant, who was an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority ("Authority") was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service since he failed to complete and submit priority work that was marked to him; that he was a habitual late comer and remained missing from office during working hours without intimation, and had availed frequent leaves---Appellate authority converted appellant's dismissal from service to compulsory retirement ---Appellant filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was allowed and appellant was reinstated in service on the ground that all charges against him, except that of late submission of priority work, remained unproved---High Court, however, directed that competent authority may impose any minor penalty upon the appellant in accordance with rules of the Authority, and that since appellant was not free from blemish and partly responsible, thus, he was not entitled to back benefits except for the purpose of seniority and counting of intervening period for pensionary benefits---Validity---High Court had not given any reason for holding the appellant partly responsible---Appellant had properly explained reasons for the delay in submitting priority work by stating that the nature of priority work was such that he did not have much experience in it; that there was considerable work load on him, but despite that he took out the time to accomplish the priority work assigned to him---Once the High Court had reinstated the appellant in service, it should have allowed the back benefits unless it was proved that the appellant had obtained a gainful employment during the period of dismissal or was making some earnings---Appeal was allowed accordingly and authority was directed to pay back benefits to the appellant from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement .