Aqib Khalid v. Inspector General of Police & others (Execution)

Background

The applicant, a police constable, was discharged from service by order dated 05.01.2018 on account of the registration of an FIR. He was later acquitted in that criminal case. On 17.03.2025 the Sindh Service Tribunal allowed his service appeal (Service Appeal No. 06 of 2024). The operative paragraph said:

“In view of reasons discussed above, instant appeal is allowed. The impugned original and appellate orders are set-aside and 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 been drawing salary since April 2025. The dispute was about the period in between.

What the department paid

According to the order, the department paid him only 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 out-of-service period, 10.02.2018 to 24.04.2025 (2,631 days), as extraordinary leave without pay under Rule 19 of the same rules.

The argument for the applicant

The operative paragraph said “back benefits” but did not say which benefits were payable, and its last line, that the out-of-service period be treated as “leave of kind due”, left room for the department to read it as covering the whole period. The applicant filed an execution application asking the Tribunal to implement its judgment. As recorded in the order, his counsel contended that:

• he had been reinstated and was drawing salary from April 2025, but had been paid only 36 days’ salary, with the rest treated as extraordinary leave;
• under the Tribunal’s judgment he was entitled to back benefits from the date of discharge up to the date of reinstatement; and
• this was supported by 2021 SCMR 962.

The department’s response

The Additional Advocate General submitted that the judgment had been complied with: the applicant was reinstated and drawing salary regularly, and back benefits for the same period had been treated as leave of the kind due. The 36 balance earned leaves were treated as full pay under Rule 8(a), and the rest of the period as leave without pay (extraordinary leave) under Rule 19.

The Tribunal’s reasoning

Acquittal and Rule 16.3. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was discharged because of an FIR and later acquitted. On acquittal, under Rule 16.3(1) of the Police Rules, 1934, he is to be reinstated unless his case falls within the exception clauses (a) to (e) of that sub-rule.

2021 SCMR 962. The Tribunal held that this case “is fully supporting” the applicant’s arguments. It reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that where an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank was set aside unconditionally, back benefits were to be paid necessarily; that the grant of back benefits to an employee illegally kept away from employment was a rule and denial an exception; and that a reinstated civil servant whose dismissal was illegal and for no fault of his is to be treated as having always been in service and paid salary from the day he was removed.

The “leave of kind due” line. The Tribunal looked at the operative paragraph of its own judgment. The applicant had been discharged on 05.01.2018 and reinstated in compliance with the judgment. The last line, that the out-of-service period be treated as leave of kind due, related to “the period, if any prior to passing of impugned order dated 05.01.2018”. It did not mean that the period from the discharge order of 05.01.2018 to reinstatement in April 2025 was to be treated in the same way.

Outcome

The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to back benefits from the date of discharge to the date of reinstatement, and that the judgment dated 17.03.2025 “has not been satisfied yet”. The respondents were directed to comply with the judgment “in letter and spirit” and to pay back benefits to the applicant for the period 05.01.2018 to 24.04.2025. The order does not state a sum.

Why it matters

An order that says “reinstated with back benefits” can be read in different ways when it does not list the benefits or explain what happens to the out-of-service period. This order shows that, where the department pays far less than full back benefits, an execution application can be used to ask the Tribunal to clarify and enforce its own judgment. It also confirms the Tribunal’s reading that a “leave of kind due” direction did not turn the whole period from discharge to reinstatement into leave without pay. Each case depends on the wording of its own order. See also our article Reinstated With Back Benefits but Paid Only Leave?