The petitioners were compulsorily retired from their service in Punjab Road Transport Corporation.
They filed Writ Petition No. 1489 of 1985 to challenge their compulsory retirement. During the pendency of the writ petition, some understanding was arrived at between the petitioners and the Punjab Road Transport Corporation. In consequence, the writ petition was dismissed being not pressed. They also gave an undertaking to the Director (P. & Adam.), Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, that on their reinstatement in service, they shall not claim/pursue the PRTC for back benefits of intervening period. On the basis of this undertaking the petitioners were reinstated by order dated 9-3-1991 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation.
2. The grievance in this petition is that Riaz Hussain Shah and Muhammad Sarwar Saeed, who were placed in similar circumstances, have been allowed the back benefits despite their undertaking not to claim the same, but a discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioners by refusal to grant the benefits.
3. Mr. Ahmad Awais, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid persons never gave any undertaking as alleged. On the contrary, the back benefits were granted under the orders dated 5-6-1990 passed by the Managing Director Punjab Road Transport Corporation. In the case of Riaz Hussain Shah, the order is at paragraph 419 of the departmental file No. Estt.l/5/TM/392, which reads as follows:-- "Seen. Heard in person. Order of previous M.D. Reversed. Reinstated in case he withdraws his petition from the High Court. After which his detailed orders would be issued. He should give an undertaking that he would not ask for back benefits, except those legitimate."
In the case of Muhammad Sarwar Saeed, the order is contained in paragraph 335 of departmental file No. Estt.l/5/AWM/631. The order reads as under:-- "Mr. Sarwar Saeed was heard in person. There is no substantial or specific allegation in the summary. He seems to be an officer who has disagreed with his superiors but that should not be a cause for premature retirement. His appeal is accepted, however, since he performed no duty during the period of his `retirement', this period will be treated as `leave of the kind due'.--- However, in continuation of the aforesaid orders, Riaz Hussain Shah was allowed back benefits of the intervening period, that is to say 10-8-1985 to 12-6-1990 vide Office Order No. Estt.1/5/TM/392, dated 11-2-1991. Likewise Muhammad Sarwar Saeed was allowed back benefits from 31-10-1984 to 24-9-1988 vide Office Order No. Estt.l/5/AWM/631, dated 20-3-1991. These office orders have been placed on record vide Annexures `N' and `Q' to the writ petition.
4. When faced with this, Mr. Ahmad Awais, learned counsel for the respondents submitted at the Bar that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the question of back benefits will be considered afresh by the Managing Director of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation within a fortnight after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, through a speaking order. This is acceptable to learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.