' GULZAR AHMED, J.---Upon advertisement issued by the respondent the appellant had applied for the post of Time Scale Clerk BPS-7. He was interviewed by the departmental selection committee and after complying with all codal formalities Offer Letter dated 19-8-2002 was issued to the appellant. The appellant appeared before the Civil Surgeon Hyderabad on 22-8-2002 for fitness certificate which was issued and thereafter on his reporting, he was appointed vide letter No,24-8- 2002 as Time Scale Clerk BPS-7 in the Cantt. Post Office Hyderabad. The appellant was working satisfactorily in the department but all of a sudden through letter dated 30-12-2002 without any show-cause notice or any opportunity of hearing and without any allegations of misconduct, his services were terminated. The appellant after following the procedure of the departmental appeal filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which through the impugned judgment was dismissed for the reasons that his service was terminated without any stigma and during probationary period. Against such judgment the present appeal has been filed and it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that similar employees were appointed by the postal department in Karachi region and their services were also terminated during probationary period and such being challenged by such employees the Federal Service Tribunal allowed their appeals by directing their reinstatement with full back benefit which judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was challenged by the department in this Court by Civil Appeals Nos.209-K to 216-K, 218-K, 220-K and 222-K to 227-K all of 2009. All these appeals were disposed of by the order dated 22-12-2009 as follows:--- "Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that if the respondents are reinstated in service they will forgo the back benefits. Learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the petitioners has conceded the above position. By consent the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The reinstatement shall be made within a period of 15 days as per undertaking given by the learned Deputy Attorney-General."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will be satisfied if the appellant's case is also dealt in similar way as dealt with by this Court in the above quoted order.
3. The learned DAG in the first instance contended that the petitioner did not have enough marks in intermediate examination and then secondly, when he could not support such a submission, he contended that the appellant was appointed on the dependent quota and not on merit and that in making of such appointment the appointment of the petitioner has exceeded the provided quota.
4. On examination of the record we find that the appointment of the appellant apparently was not based on dependent quota rather the same appears to have been made on merit and such argument of the learned DAG does not hold the ground.
5. We find no reason as to why the case of the present appellant be dealt with otherwise than dealt with by this Court as noted in the above order. We therefore allow this appeal set aside the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and issue directions to the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service immediately, but such reinstatement will be without back benefits.