CH. MUHAMMAD SARWAR, MEMBER.-- Appeal against order dated 4.4.1989 vide which the appellant was reinstated in service but doe to undertaking given by the appellant was not entitled to claim salary/arrears for the period he remained out of service. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Arabic Teacher on 9.7.1985. On 8.3.1986, his services were terminated.
He was reinstated in service vide impugned order dated 4.4.1989 but he was not given arrears of pay. It was prayed in the appeal that he may be paid arrears of pay from 8.3.1986 to 4.4.1989 and he may be assigned seniority w.e.f his initial appointment i.e. 9.7.1985.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and has perused the record and comments submitted by the respondent No. 1. The impugned order was passed on 4.4.1989.
The appellant preferred the appeal to the Department after 7 years and that was rejected by the Director Education (EE), Gujranwala on 18.6.1996. The appeal before this Tribunal was preferred on 17.7.1996.
3. The appellant has not justified the delay of 7 years in filing the appeal before appellate authority/Department. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of his continuous appointment w.e.f. 9.7.1985, the appellant was not assigned seniority.
4. Vide orders dated 4.4.1989, the appellant was reinstated in service. In order dated 18.6.1996, Director Education (EE), Gujranwala treated his reinstatement as fresh appointment w.e.f. 4.4.1989 because he was not paid arrears of pay for the period he remained out of service. The appellant was reinstated on 4.8.1989. The perusal of the order dated 4.4.1989 reveals that the appellant was reinstated and he was not entitled for salary for the period he remained out of service.
5. The order of reinstatement includes all benefits of service except benefit of earned leave for the period the employee has not actually performed the duty. In this case, the appellant has given undertaking not to claim the arrears of pay for the period he remained out of job. He has not foregone his right of seniority. He is thus entitled to seniority from the date of appointment i.e. 9.7.1985 because he was reinstated in service and reinstatement includes such benefit. The Department is, therefore, directed to assign the appellant seniority treating him continuous in service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 9.7.1985.
6. There will be no order as to costs.