' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, This order shall dispose of all the petitions directed against a consolidated judgment, dated 27-11-2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal).
2. Facts briefly stated are that the petitioners in all these cases after having passed their Matriculation Examination joined "Dispenser Course" held by the Punjab Medical Faculty being conducted under the authority of the Punjab Health Department. After successful completion of the aforesaid course the petitioners were issued Certificates of Dispenser Course by the Punjab Medical Faculty. It is pertinent to mention over here that before admission to the said course the petitioners were required by the Government of Punjab to execute a surety bond in favour of the Government that on successful completion of the said Course the petitioners would be bound to serve the Government Punjab Health Department at least for two years. All the petitioners, according to learned counsel, executed the said bond.
3. In May, 1992 an advertisement appeared in the daily press by the respective Health Officers for appointment to the posts of Medical Technicians in BPS-9 and Dispensers in (BS-6) in various District Hospitals in the Punjab. The required qualification for the post of Dispenser was Matriculation with Dispenser Diploma. All the petitioners applied for the post of Dispenser. They were interviewed by a Recruiting Committee comprising of Additional Director Health Services and other officers from the Health Directorate. Resultantly the petitioners were appointed as Dispensers and respective letters of appointment were issued in the year 1993. They were posted against the posts of Medical Technicians in (BS-9) in their own pay and scale i.e. (BS-6), the scale of the Dispenser against which post they were appointed. Surprisingly after five years of their successful and unblemished service they were issued notices in October, 1998 under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for violating the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Condition of Service Rules), 1974 in their appointments.
4. The petitioners submitted their reply. However, without providing any opportunity of hearing their services were terminated and they were removed from service on 20-2-1999. The petitioners submitted Departmental Appeals which were rejected in pursuance to Government Letter No.SO(GIII)1-3/98, dated 9-2-1999, on the ground that their appointments against the posts of Medical Technicians were erratic and contrary to the Government policy/rules.
5. All the petitioners challenged their termination and the rejection of their Departmental. Appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The learned Tribunal accepted all the appeals and issued direction for their re-adjustment in the service as Dispensers intervening period was ordered to be treated as extraordinary leave. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in not allowing them back-benefits as they were ordered by the competent authority to work against the posts of Medical Technicians in their own pay and scale without any fault of their own. The learned Law Officer has opposed the back-benefits simply on the ground that the same had not been allowed by the Tribunal while allowing their appeals.
7. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with the petitions. We must say at the very outset that the respondents filed civil petitions earlier against the order of the Tribunal, subject-matter of these Petitions Nos.490, 555-587-L of 2002 which have been dismissed by this Court on 26-4-2002. It must be appreciated and the same is not denied that all the petitioners fully satisfy the requirements for the post of Dispensers. They were appointed by the Recruitment Committee after issuance of public notice for the appointment of Dispensers in the daily press. It is pertinent to mention over here that the petitioners acted according to their bond which they had earlier executed at the time of entry into course of Dispenser. They executed the bond that they would serve the Punjab Health Department for a period of two years. They have got unblemished period of five years' service at their disposal. We fail to understand why they were issued show-caused notices under Efficiency and Discipline Rules without there being any complaint of either nature against them. They have been thrown out of service by the competent authority in a slipshod mechanical manner simply on the basis of direction issued by the Government vide letter, dated 9-2-1999. The competent authority nor the departmental authority applied its independent mind to the grievance of the petitioners. It is worth mentioning over here that during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal the District Attorney who was representing the respondents after seeking instructions from the departmental authority made a statement before Tribunal that the petitioners could not have been terminated from service.
According to him the petitioners/appellants at the most could have been reverted to their original posts of Dispensers in BS-6. At the cost of repetition we must observe that after successful selection of the petitioners by the Recruitment Committee as Dispensers the competent authority adjusted them on its own against the posts of Medical Technicians in the grade of Dispensers. The petitioners are only claiming the back-benefits of the posts of Dispensers and not of Medical Technicians against which they were forced to work. It is also to be appreciated that the petitioners have been meted out discriminatory treatment as admittedly certain other Dispensers who were appointed along with the petitioners were kept in service while the petitioners have been thrown on the road side in an arbitrary manner. Furthermore, there is nothing on record that the petitioners were gainfully employed anywhere during the relevant period. It would be very unjust and harsh to deprive them of back-benefits for the period for which they remained out of job without any fault from their side. At the cost of repetition they were proceeded under (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules for no fault on their part and their services were terminated in an arbitrary manner without providing any reason. The departmental authority rejected their appeals simply on the ground that they were appointed against the post of Medical Technician in an erratic manner without noticing that they were selected as Dispensers in BS-6 and the competent authority of its own adjusted them as Medical Technicians in their own pay and scale. It was not their fault that they held the post of Medical Technician. All these aspects have not been considered and the petitioners were made to suffer throughout this period for no fault of their own. In these circumstances we fail to understand how their salary can be withheld for the said period when they remained out of service due to whimsical and arbitrary actions of the functionaries. The petitioners have got every right to recover their arrears. Reliance in this respect is placed on Pakistan through General Manager, P.W.R., Lahore v. Mrs. A.V. Issacs PLD 1970 SC 415. Accordingly, keeping in view all the aforesaid features of the cases, we convert these petitions into appeals and allow the petitioners all the back-benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.