mr. justice tassaduq hussain jillani mr. justice nasir-ul-mulk mr ...

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 39/2010, 1150/2010, 1162/2010, 142-K/2009, 177-
K/2010, 178-K/2010, 228-K/2010, 57-K/2011, 63-K/2011, 65-K/2011, 66-
K/2011, 83-K/2011, 91-K/2011, 135-K/2011, 136-K/2011, 137-K/2011, 188-
K/2011, 232-K/2011, 75-K/2012 AND 82-K/2012
12
service vide order dated 1.12.2000. The said order was however
withdrawn by the competent authority; he was reinstated but later
onfresh enquiry was held which culminated in the award of the
same major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated
12.12.2001. He challenged the order in appeal before the Service
Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 19.3.2010. However
the said order was challenged before this Court which set aside the
order of the Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 11.6.2010.
Meanwhile, respondent filed a representation before the Secretary
Finance who vide order dated 2.12.2011 allowed the said
representation and finding that he had been condemned unheard,
reinstated him and left the question of payment of back benefits to
a Committee constituted by the President of the Bank. The said
Committee, however, did not grant him back benefits whereafter he
approached the High Court in constitution petition which was
allowed inter alia on the ground that there was no evidence on
record that he was gainfully employed and merely because he had
invested some money in defense certificates does not disentitle him
to back benefits.
Gist of the Arguments:
12. In support of Civil Appeal No. 39/2010 learned
counsel for the appellants Mr. Khalid Javed, ASC submitted that
the learned High Court of Sindh has failed to appreciate that the
service of the respondent was neither regulated by any law nor
statutory rules of service and the petition under Article 199 of the
Constitution was not maintainable; that the learned High Court
has failed to consider that the termination order dated 9.9.2008 of