Moazzam Hayat, Member-Appellant Mukhtar Ahmed is Statistical Officer in the Population Census Organization. He was initially appointed as Statistical Assistant on contract in the year 1998.
Subsequently he was absorbed against Economic Census Project on contract in the year 2000 in the Federal Bureau of Statistics. The project was closed on 30.06.2005. It transpires from the record that the Finance Division had sanctioned posts of Statistical Assistants for a period of two years starting from 01.07.2007. The appellant was offered the post of Statistical Assistant (BS-11) upto 30.06.2009. He joined on 31.01.2008. He remained out of government service from 01.07.2005 to 30.01.2008. He has prayed in the present appeal that his pay for this period be protected.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the period during which the appellant had remained out of service could not be treated to be on duty, therefore, the pay of the appellant for that period could not be protected.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, departmental representative of the respondents and have also perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to an order dated 09.06.2008 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No, 1453/2005. In this order Mr. Justice Dr. Sajid Qureshi was pleased to issue a direction that the appellant be considered for the post which was to be advertised and his upper age limit be relaxed. A further direction was issued that the appellant shall also be considered for future employment We find that the appellant was considered and re appointed. In this manner the direction of the Islamabad High Court was fully complied with.
However, the claim of the appellant pertains to the period he was not in government service. For that period he was not entitled to any pay.
5. The appellant has relied upon 2001 SCM R 1935. This ruling relates to workman. It says that "where nature of job against which a person was engaged, was likely to be completed within the period of nine months and in fact had completed later on after expiry of such period, such person would be temporary workman, as such had no legitimate claim for his reinstatement in service". Thus this ruling has no nexus with the claim of the appellant who is not a workman nor is he requesting for reinstatement.
6. Pay can be protected only when there is no gap in service or the gap is negligible. Where the gap is of more than two years, it cannot be condoned. In this case the gap in the service of the appellant cannot be condoned. In fact he was re-appointed in service. In cases of re-appointment, the Civil servant cannot claim the benefit for the period he had remained out of service. The judgments of the Tribunal do not give support to the case of the appellant.
7. Finding no merit in the appeal we dismiss the same.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Parties shall be informed accordingly.