1. ORDER Learned counsel for the appellant in the instant appeal has prayed for grant of financial benefits for the intervening period i.e. From 6.6.2001 to 15.2.2007 which, while allowing his appeal and directing his reinstatement, by the respondent No. 2 (Additional Inspector General of Police, Sindh, Karachi) was declined to him.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the said order Annexure "E" at page 43 of the file. Same is reproduced herein blow:-
3. I have gone through the relevant record and also perused the judgment of Hon'ble Court. The primary cause of dismissal was his involvement in the murder case in which he now stands acquitted, In view of the acquitted of the appellant by the Trial Court, the dismissal order passed by the then defunct S.S.P. Central Karachi is set aside and he is reinstated in service. The intervening period he spent out of service is treated as leave of kind due.
4. Sd/- ADDL. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SINDH, KARACHI Karachi dated 15.2.2007 No. 892-95/E-l 11/2007 It seems that the appellant even after his acquittal by the learned .Trial Court in the murder case could not get order of his re-instatement. Accordingly he filed an appeal 30/2006 before this Tribunal. While pendency of the appeal (30/2006) learned A.A.G, appearing in the appeal on the date of hearing of the appeal on 9.3.2007 produced a copy of order dated 15.2.2007 reproduced herein above, before this Tribunal whereafter the Tribunal while disposing of Appeal No. 30/2006 of the appellant passed the following order: ORDER ON APPEAL NO. 30/2006 9.3.2007 Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Sahito, Advocate for appellant. Mrs. Tabasam Ghazanfar, A.A.G, alongwith Mr. Raza Mian, P.l. AIG Legal present. He has produced copy of order dated 15.2.2007 whereby impugned order has been set aside and appellant has been reinstated in service and as far as intervening period is concerned that has been decided as leave of kind due. Such copy of order is supplied to the advocate for appellant who on instruction of his client does not press the appeal as the grievance of the appellant has been redressed. Appeal is disposed of as not pressed as having become infructuous.
5. Sd/- (JUSTICE (RETD) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH)
6. CHAIRMAN Sd /- (ASHIQUE HUSSAIN MEMON)
7. MEMBER-I Sd/- (QABOOL AHMED SHAIKH)
8. MEMBER-II The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order Annexure "E" of reinstatement of the appellant was invalid insofar as the financial benefits for the intervening period were declined to the appellant.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention raised and say that it is misconceived.
10. Admittedly Annexure "E" is the Order passed by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Sindh, Karachi favouring the appellant with directions for the reinstatement in service and for the intervening period his absence was to be treated as leave of kind due.
11. Above order Was. Produced by the Government through A.A.G, which is reproduced above and is self- speaking. Needless to repeat that the copy of the order was supplied to the Advocate for appellant who orr instructions of his client did not press the appeal, meaning thereby that the appellant was satisfied with the order and did not fell praying for any other reliefs).
12. We are of the-considered view that the appellant and himself waived his right to salary etc. For the intervening period while consenting to the disposal of the appeal as such. The order dated 9.3.2007 disposing of the Appeal No. 30/2006 is sufficiently clear to say and hold that the appellant' had ho further relief(s)' to see'k. The appellant cannot' be allowed to drop a relief(s) prayed at one stage and' then claim the same at a later stage. The appeal in our view is without substance which is dismissed in limine.