1. GULZAR AHMED, J.--- By this petition, petitioner has claimed payment of all back-benefits to him on the facts that he was employed as Deputy Manager in pay scale PSE-III with the Pakistan Steel Mill Corporation and was proceeded against under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, pursuant to which he was inflicted penalty of reversion to one lower grade post that of Assistant Manager. The petitioner challenged such order by filing the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, who vide its judgment dated 27-3-2006 allowed the appeal of the petitioner, set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner be restored to the post of Deputy Manager with all back-benefits of post of Deputy Manager. Pursuant to such judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, the respondents vide Memorandum dated 8-5-2006 restored the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager but without prejudice to the right of appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
2. ' It appears that the respondents filed civil petition assailing the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, which petition came up for hearing on 20-10-2006 and following the judgment in the case of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 petition was abated and disposed of accordingly.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that despite the abatement of the petition by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the respondents have continued to employ the petitioner in the post of Deputy Manager on the dint of judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal but have not paid all back-benefits of the post of Deputy Manager as directed by learned Federal Service Tribunal.
4. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that though the petitioner was restored to the post of Deputy Manager by the respondents but he is not entitled to the payment of all back-benefits in view of the fact that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal has merged into the order of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which has nullified the effect of the judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal and in this respect he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 681.
5. ' No counter-affidavit or parawise comments have been filed by the respondents disputing the facts alleged in the petition. It is obvious from the memorandum that petitioner was restored to the post of Deputy Manager in terms of the judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal subject to the decision of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Though the decision was given by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on 20-10-2006, by which the petition filed by the respondents was abated but the petitioner continued to remain posted as Deputy Manager with the respondents inasmuch as no order was passed by the respondent against him for availing the remedy by virtue of abatement of petition of the respondents by Honourable Supreme Court of, Pakistan. Such position continued until the filing of this petition on 26-2-2007 and it also continued until the matter came up before us for hearing. Nothing was stated by learned counsel for respondents that respondent does not wish to retain the petitioner in the post of Deputy Manager.
6. This being the state of factual position, the petitioner having been restored to the post of Deputy 'Manager by dint of judgment of Federal Service Tribunal which also directs payment of all back- benefits to the petitioner, we find no reason as to why the petitioner should remain deprived of such benefits, moreso when respondents through their own conduct have acquiesced in accepting the judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal which in such eventuality has to be given its full effect. As the facts and circumstances of the present case are different, in our respectful view, the ratio of Muhammad Idrees's case cited by learned counsel for the respondent will not be applicable.
7. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by a short order dated 27-5-2009, we have allowed this petition. Above are the reasons for the said short order.