Law:

Section:

(a) Civil service-------Re-instatement---Service benefits, grant of---Principle---Grant of service benefits to an employee, who had been illegally kept away from his employment, was the rule, and denial of service benefits to such a reinstated employee was an exception on the proof of such a person having remained gainfully employed during such a period. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980-------O.XXVI, R.1---Review petition---Delay of 102 days in filing of review petition---Absence of explanation---Effect---Ground for review was that respondent had practised fraud on the Court, which had led the Court into the passing of the under review, thus, limitation did not run against the petitioners---Validity---Neither proof of any fraud having been played on the Court nor any explanation about delay of 102 days in filing the review petition, was available on record---Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. PLD 1954 Lah. 745; 1993 SCMR 618;1994 SCMR 782; PLD 1975 SC 331 and 1986 SCMR 1496 ref. (c) Supreme Court Rules, 1980--- ----O.XXVI, R.1 & O.XXXIII---Review petition---Court directed the petitioners to pay service benefits to respondent from 12-12-1988 to 9-9-1997---Petitioners sought review of said on the ground that respondent had played fraud on the Court by concealing the fact of his having migrated to another country in year 1989 and settled there with no plan to return to Pakistan, thus, he was not entitled to service benefits for said period---Validity---Except for the petitioners' word of mouth, there was nothing on record to establish or even to indicate that respondent had been living abroad during all these years or had settled there and had no intention to return to Pakistan---Declaration to said effect could not be given on mere oral statement of petitioners---Mere fact that respondent had left the country and had gone abroad without any proof of his being gainfully employed somewhere during said period, was neither sufficient to deprive him of service benefits nor in absence of such proof, it could be held that he had committed any fraud on Court---Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492