Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. SHAKILA AKHTAR VS Respondent: SECRETARY EDUCATIONHonorable Justice MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHANShahzada Shahpur Jan,Muhammad Latif Khan
1988 P L C (C
1988 P L C (C.S.) 660
[Service Tribunal N.‑W.F.P. ]
Present: Ma1ik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman and Sahibzada Muhammad Fridoon Khan, Member
Mst. SHAKILA AKHTAR
versus
SECRETARY EDUCATION and 2 others
Appeal No.72 of 1987, decided on 7th June, 1988.
North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Suspension‑‑Appellant placed under suspension before her compulsory retirement and subsequently her suspension was treated as absence from duty after lapse of sufficient time and consequently she was denied benefits accruing to a suspended Government servant‑ Record showing that appellant proved her claim for payment of emoluments during period of suspension and had participated in inquiry and had not received any emoluments of said period which was treated as absence from duty without any reason‑‑Held, period of suspension could not be treated as absence from duty and appellant was entitled to receive emoluments which were admissible to a suspended Government official.
Shahzada Shahpur Jan for Appellant.
Muhammad Latif Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents.
Date of institution: 3rd August, 1987.
JUDGMENT
MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Mst. Shakila Akhtar the appellant feeling dis‑satisfied with the impugned order vide which her suspension period was treated as absence from duty and consequently she was denied the benefits accruing to a suspended Government servant, she has moved this Tribunal through the present appeal alleging therein that while serving as C. T. Teacher in Government Girls High School, Shabqadar Fort, she was compulsorily retired from service. She was placed under suspension with effect from 11‑10‑1984 to 1‑7‑1986 before her retirement from service. She then claimed the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension altered into absence from duty, without any reason. He was not competent to do so after a lapse of sufficient time to her detriment. A right accruing to a defaulting person cannot be withdrawn. Lateron she approached the higher authority but in vain hence the present appeal.
The claim of the appellant was vehemently resisted by the respondents on the ground that nowhere on the record the suspension order exists. It was clarified and corrected later on. She remained absent from duty throughout the said period and question of suspension in the circumstances does not arise.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that she was suspended from service and under the rules, she is entitled to the benefits.
On the other hand learned Special Government Pleader argued that since she was not suspended from service and on the discovery of mistake the amending order was made and the suspension was altered into absence from duty.
We have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and have come to the conclusion that after such a long period the suspension cannot be altered into absence from duty in order to deprive an aggrieved person from the benefits which have accrued to him/her. If a person is absent from duty he can be proceeded against ex parte, but in the instant case the record reveals that she did participate in the enquiry. The record is silent as to whether she received any emoluments of the said period or not. Later on she claimed the same and it is quite obvious that under the rules, a suspended Government official is entitled to the same. It is, therefore, clear that she had proved her claim and we accordingly accept the present appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room.
M.Y.H./82/Sr.N Appeal allowed.