Reinstated With Back Benefits but Paid Leave? SST Execution

A service appeal can end with the words every employee wants to read: “reinstated in service with back benefits.” But those words are only the start. In Aqib Khalid v. Inspector General of Police & others, a reinstated police constable was paid 36 days’ salary and the rest of his years out of service were treated as extraordinary leave. The Sindh Service Tribunal had to explain, on an execution application, what “back benefits” meant.

What happened

The constable was discharged by order dated 05.01.2018 on account of the registration of an FIR, and was later acquitted. On 17.03.2025 the Tribunal allowed his appeal. Our summary of that decision is on the page Aqib Khalid v. Inspector General of Police & others (Service Appeal No. 06 of 2024). Its operative paragraph said the appellant “is reinstated in service with back benefits. His out of service period be treated as leave of kind due.”

He was reinstated and has drawn salary since April 2025. For the years in between, the department paid him 36 days’ salary in lieu of 36 balance earned leaves under Rule 8(a) of the Civil Servants Leave Rules 1986. It treated the remaining period, 10.02.2018 to 24.04.2025 (2,631 days), as extraordinary leave without pay under Rule 19.

Why the wording mattered

The operative paragraph contained two sentences that could pull in different directions. The first gave “back benefits” but did not list them. The second said the out-of-service period was to be treated as “leave of kind due”. The department read the second sentence as covering the whole period from discharge to reinstatement, so the back benefits became leave, almost all of it unpaid. The applicant’s position was that this left the first sentence with almost no meaning.

The execution application

The applicant filed Execution Application No. 61 of 2025 in Appeal No. 06 of 2024, asking the Tribunal to implement its own judgment. His counsel argued that he was entitled to back benefits from the date of discharge to the date of reinstatement and relied on 2021 SCMR 962. The Additional Advocate General argued that the judgment had been complied with, because the period had been treated as leave of the kind due. The matter was heard on 18.02.2026 and decided on 06.03.2026.

What the Tribunal held

Acquittal. Under Rule 16.3(1) of the Police Rules, 1934, an officer acquitted of a criminal case is to be reinstated unless the case falls within the exception clauses (a) to (e).
Back benefits are the rule. The Tribunal said 2021 SCMR 962 “is fully supporting” the applicant. It records the Supreme Court’s view that granting back benefits to an employee illegally kept away from employment “was a rule and denial of service benefits to such reinstated employee was an exception”.
The “leave of kind due” line. It related to “the period, if any prior to passing of impugned order dated 05.01.2018”, and did not mean that the period from discharge to reinstatement was to be treated the same way.
Direction. The applicant is entitled to back benefits from discharge to reinstatement, the 17.03.2025 judgment “has not been satisfied yet”, and the respondents must comply “in letter and spirit” and pay back benefits for 05.01.2018 to 24.04.2025.

The order does not state a sum. Read the full summary on our judgment page: Aqib Khalid v. Inspector General of Police & others (Execution).

Practical lessons for reinstated employees

These are general points drawn from this order. They are not a formula, and your order may be worded differently.

Read the operative paragraph against what you were paid. Put the order next to the department’s reinstatement order and pay records.
Get the department’s treatment of the gap in writing. Here it turned on which leave rules were applied (Rule 8(a) and Rule 19).
An execution application is one route. It was used here, in the same appeal, and was decided less than a year after reinstatement. The forum and time limits for your case need advice.
Cite the right authority. The applicant relied on 2021 SCMR 962 on back benefits and on Rule 16.3 for reinstatement after acquittal.
When drafting an appeal, ask for specific relief. Asking that the order say which period counts as service, and which benefits follow, can reduce room for argument later.

If you have been reinstated and believe you were paid less than the order requires, bring your judgment and pay records for a quick review.

Need advice on your matter?

Every case turns on its own documents and facts. Speak to MSA Law Chamber in Karachi for advice on your situation.

Or call +92 308 2254647

Frequently asked questions

What does “reinstated with back benefits” mean?

It depends on the wording of the order, but in this case the Tribunal, relying on 2021 SCMR 962, held that a reinstated employee is treated as having always been in service and is entitled to back benefits from the date he was discharged to the date he was reinstated. The Tribunal directed payment for 05.01.2018 to 24.04.2025.

Can the department treat the out-of-service period as extraordinary leave without pay?

The department did so in this case, but the Tribunal held that the “leave of kind due” line in its judgment related to the period, if any, before the 05.01.2018 order and did not turn the whole period from discharge to reinstatement into leave. Whether the same applies to you depends on the wording of your own order.

What can I do if a judgment is only partly implemented?

In this case the employee filed an execution application in the same appeal, asking the Tribunal to implement its judgment. First collect the department’s order showing how the period was treated and compare it with the operative paragraph. Then take legal advice on the forum and timing for your case.

Does Rule 16.3 of the Police Rules, 1934 help a police officer who is acquitted?

As recorded in the order, under Rule 16.3(1) an officer who has been acquitted of a criminal case is to be reinstated unless the case falls within the exception clauses (a) to (e). Each case depends on its own facts.

Disclaimer: General information only, not legal advice. This article summarises a Sindh Service Tribunal order as at the date shown and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Every case depends on the wording of its own judgment and its own facts; please take advice before acting.

Reinstated With Back Benefits but Paid Only Leave? How Execution Enforced Full Back Benefits (SST, 2026)