' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working at Naib Qasid in erstwhile Municipal Committee, Dera Ghazi Khan. Vide Order dated 13-4-1993 his services were terminated by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, D.G. Khan. He filed an appeal against the termination order which was allowed by the Assistant Director Local Government and Rural Development Department D.G. Khan vide order dated 4-5-1999. Consequently since the post of Naib Qasid was not available in the Committee, the Chairman vide order dated 1-10-1999 with the consent of the appellant appointed him as Baildar, City Park, D.G. Khan. The appellant joined his duty and continued working till 4-7-2000 in the said capacity. During this period, no salary was paid to him on the pretext that his appointment was illegal as observed in an audit para. Whereafter he was not even allowed to continue in the service. He repeatedly requested to assign him duty but he was not allowed. He filed Constitution petition before this 'Court. Report and parawise comments were called and after hearing the parties the same was dismissed vide order dated 15-4-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that after acceptance of appeal by Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development and issuance of Office Order by Chairman of Committee, on 1-10-1990, the appellant joined his duty. Thereafter there is no order from any Competent Authority, whereby services of the appellant were terminated. Merely on an observation made by the Audit Team, the services of the appellant could not be terminated or dispensed with.
For at least 9/10 months, the appellant had been continuously working. He is a class four employee.
He had been trying his level best here and there andknocking every door by filing applications but his grievance could not be redressed, therefore delay in filing the Constitution petition can be ignored.
3. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. Has opposed this appeal and has defended the impugned order.
4, While replying para. No,4 of the writ petition, it is admitted inthe comments that the salary was refused to the appellant on account of audit objection and the same could only be removed with the sanction of Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department.
If this exercise was required, the same should have been done by the respondents at their own level. Appellant was not required to under take this exercise. It is also undeniable fact that there was no order of Competent Authority with respect to the termination of petitioner's services after his reinstatement on 1-10-1999. Since there is no termination order passed by any Authority appellant shall be deemed to be continuously in service from 1-10-1999 till today. As a result of above discussion, we hold that the appellant shall be paid his due salary w.e.f, 1-10-1999 till 4-7- 2000 the period during which he actually worked: The period during which the appellant was not assigned any duty shall be deemed to be on leave without pay. Respondents are direct to join the appellant on duty within a week.
5. With this observation, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.