RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---The learned counsel for the appellant had stated that the appellant, Abdul Rehman Khan, had gone to Saudi Arabia on deputation in July 1976 and remained there till September, 1988. But to his bad luck, the appellant on return had been suspended from service and then awarded with a punishment of reduction to lower rank vide order dated 24-4- 1989. He had elaborated that on representation of the appellant, his period of stay abroad had been regularised by the Department from 9-7-1977 to 24-4-1989 vide order dated 20-4-1992 and as such the punishment awarded had become meaningless and it should be set aside. The learned counsel had stressed that the respondent-Department while regularising his stay abroad, had referred to a general circular of the Establishment Division dated 25-6-1984, whereby there was no limit of stay/deputation for an official in foreign country, but it was subject to his seniority put on the static list which would only obtain on his return and rejoining the Department otherwise after five years stay in a foreign country, he would not be entitled to seniority and other similar benefits of promotion etc. Unless he had joined back the Department in Pakistan. He had submitted that in principle and in general terms he would ague to the terms and conditions as laid down in the Circular of 25-6-1984 and he would not stress for seniority, but only for his reinstatement to his original service without reduction in his rank. He had also referred to the following judgments of the Supreme Court in his support:--
(i) 1990 SCM R 1513,
(ii) 1991 SCM R 209 and
(iii) PLD 1992 SC 31.
He had prayed for acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the order of punishment.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent-Department had clarified that the Department had also regularised the services of the appellant vide Order dated 20-4-1992 with particular reference to the general Circular of the Establishment Division dated 25-&1984. He had also mentioned that pension contribution of the appellant had been deposited accordingly, as indicated vide letter dated 21-7-1992 and there was no further justification to waive off the punishment which had only been given, because the appellant had remained on unauthorised deputation without obtaining proper sanction or permission from the Department. Since his services had already been regularised vide order dated 20-4-1992 and he had already paid his pension contribution for his stay abroad, the appeal was infructuous, as there was no other relief which still remained to be outstanding for settlement. Therefore, his appeal was incompetent and should be disposed of accordingly.
3. After hearing the parties and going through the facts and merits of the case, we find that since the service/deputation abroad of the appellant had been regularised by the Department vide order dated 20-4-1992 and he had paid the pension contribution accordingly, the concept of awarding the punishment of reduction in rank to the appellant had been nullified. We accordingly set aside the order of punishment dated 24-4-1989 and accept the appeal to the extent that the appellant shall be reinstated into service in his original rank, but without the benefit of seniority and promotion etc. During his stay/deputation abroad, because his seniority was to be taken off from the main seniority list and to be placed on the static list in accordance with Circular of Establishment Division dated 25-6-1984.
4. No order as to costs.