ORDER SHEET.

                        HIGH COURT OF SINDH, HYDERABAD CIRCUIT.

                                                C.P.NO.D-371/2009                                       .

Date                                         Order with signature of Judge

 

                        For Katcha Peshi.

 

14.4.2010.

                        Syed Muhammad Saulat Rizvi, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G. alongwith Riaz Ahmed Memon, Additional Secretary Education and Literacy Department, Ghulam Nabi Baloch, EDO (E) Badin, Muhammad Azam DOE(E) Badin, Khalid Mehmood, DOE (A&T) Badin and Muhammad Ibrahim ADOE (M) Matli.

                                                =

 

                        The controversy in the instant petition appears to be that service of the Petitioner was terminated on 22nd August 1996 thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Service Tribunal and the learned Service Tribunal vide it’s judgment dated 10/12/2010 with consent of the parties, set aside the order of dismissal and directed that respondents may initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same within a period of three months and the question of back benefits for the period during which the services of the Petitioner were terminated would be sympathetically considered in terms of the result of disciplinary proceedings. It further appears to be an admitted position that fresh inquiry/proceedings resulted in removal of Petitioner from service by imposing major penalty. It is contended that thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the District Education Officer, Badin who vide his order dated 28th August 2002 reinstated the Petitioner from August 1996 with all back benefits including the pay etc.

                        The only defence which has been taken by the respondents is that reinstatement order of the District Education Officer, Badin dated 28th August 2002 is take, however they are not in a position to respond that if such order was fake then how the Petitioner was reinstated and admittedly working with the respondents since 2002 and further is promoted to the next Grade.

                        Once the order dated 28th August 2002 has been implemented by the respondents by reinstating the Petitioner and that too since 2002, we cannot accept that the said order is fake or manipulated. In the circumstances, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to release all admissible back benefits to the Petitioner in terms of order dated 28th August 2002.

                        The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

    

                                                                                                JUDGE

                                                            JUDGE

T