1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 366 and 367 of 1972 and 79 of 1973, in which common question of law is involved.
2. The respondents are members of the Ministerial Services of the Punjab Province who had rendered war service during the Second World War. On their representations, the seniority and other benefits under the rules relating to concession of war service to ex-servicemen was made. It was ordered that respondent in Civil Petition No. 366 of 1972 will be treated as substantive permanent senior clerk from the 14th October 1955 and as Assistant from the 3rd of August, 1960 respectively. His salary as Senior Clerk and as an Assistant will be fixed from the date of his promotion and he shall also be entitled to the arrears of pay on this account.
3. In Civil Petition No. 367 of 1972, the respondents were found by the petitioner to have been deemed to be appointed against reserved vacancies and thus eligible to the benefit of their seniority on account of their war service in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Government Service
(War) Amendment Rules, 1943, read with the Punjab Government Service (War) Amendment Rules (West Pakistan Repeal) Ordinance, 1963 and an order was passed on the 27th June 1968, wherein the dates on which they would have been promoted to higher ranks, if their war service had been counted towards the seniority from the very beginning, were indicated and the dates of pro forma promotion on that basis were also mentioned.
4. In Civil Petition No. 79 of 1973, the respondent claimed that he was employed as a temporary Clerk with the Controller of Military Accounts on the 12th November 1941 and was relieved on the 26th November 1946 for taking up appointment as Second Grade Clerk on the 27th November 1946 in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Government. He made a representation to the Departmental Authorities for the grant of war service benefit to him. During the pendency of the writ petition, an order was passed by the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department In March 1969, allowing the respondent the benefit of war service from 12th November 1941 to 15th August 1945 assigning him seniority in accordance with such benefit as also allowing him pro forma dates of promotion with the direction that his pay in the grade of Assistant and Superintendent will be fixed with reference to the assumed dates of his promotion to the said grades.
5. In all the petitions, the petitioners allowed the arrears of pay for the period for which the respondents actually performed the duties of the respective posts from the assumed dates of appointments. The respondents challenged this order in Writ Petitions Nos. 129 of 1967, 716 of 1967 and 1691-S of 1968 respectively. They claimed arrears of pay on the basis of assumed dates of promotions. In Civil Petition No. 366 of 1972, the order dated the 7th August, 1965 was amended by another order passed on the 26th March 1966. The effect of the last mentioned order was that the respondent was held entitled to the arrears of pay only for the actual period of duty performed on the higher posts. In Writ Petition No. 129 of 1967, it was held that the respondent was entitled to receive Rs. 11,671.78 minus the amount already paid to him towards the arrears of salary. Writ Petition No. 716 of 1967 was also allowed on the 11th February 1971. It was held that the respondents were entitled to arrears of pay as claimed by them. Writ Petition No. 1691-S of 1968 was accepted on the 12th December 1972.
6. The respondent was directed to rectify the mistake in assumed dates of his promotions and also allowing him the benefit of salary for the posts to which be is presumed to have been promoted under these assumed dates taking the 31st March 1946 as the terminal date of war service.
7. The petitioners challenged the first two orders in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 67 and 68 of 1972 and both of them were dismissed by order dated the 12th May 1972. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order passed in the above-mentioned appeals sand Writ Petition No. 1691-S of 1968.
8. Mr. Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, learned Assistant Advocate General for the petitioners, has contended that the High Court has not properly appreciated the points involved in these cases and the respondents were not entitled to the arrears of salary in the grade against which they have never worked and that they were only entitled to the arrears of pay to which actually they performed the duties in all posts. In Civil Petition No. 366 of 1972, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, admitted that the first order was modified by another order passed on the 26th March 1968 without any show-cause notice to the respondent. This order, therefore is a nullity in the eye of law. In view of this the Department was bound to pay him salary as Senior Clerk and as an Assistant to be fixed from the date of his promotion in view of the order dated the 7th August 1965.
9. In Civil Petition No. 367 of 1972, we agree with the High Court that in the case of a servant who, for no fault of his own, is wrongly prevented from rendering service to the State in the higher post to which he is admittedly entitled he should be given salary for the higher post.
10. In Civil Petition No. 79 of 1973, we agree with the High Court that by a subsequent notification under the India and Burma (Termination of Emergency) Order, 1946 the termination of the Emergency was fixed on the 1st April 1946 and the petitioner was entitled to claim benefit of war service from the 12th November 1941 to the 31st March 1946 and the order denying him the benefit of service beyond 15th August 1945 up to 31st March 1946 is without lawful authority.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that the judgments of the High Court in all the three matters are correct and no exception can be taken to it. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.