UNIVERSITY OF MALAKAND vs Dr — 2021 PLC(CS) 1168 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

UNIVERSITY OF MALAKAND VS Dr. ALAM ZEB Statutory obligation/right---Scope---No estoppel existed against a law---Inherent power and doctrine of estoppel could not be applied to defeat the provisions of statute---As a rule of evidence estoppel could be invoked by a party, however, the same could not be accepted against the statutory obligation of a person even though one party might not have expressly claimed his right which was available to him under the law---Doctrine of estoppel did not apply against a statute and it had no application when statutory rights and liabilities were involved---If a person had been bestowed some legal right by law/statute and he omitted to claim such legal right for a certain period of time, it did not mean that he had waived his legal right and subsequently he could not claim such right. Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS) 1168 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case UNIVERSITY OF MALAKAND VS Dr. ALAM ZEB Regln. 27---Service Rules of University of Malakand, R. 89---Contract basis lecturers subsequently regularized in service---Study leave abroad---Entitlement to payment of salary during the period abroad---In the impugned judgment the High Court had rightly observed that in R. 89 of the Service Rules of University of Malakand, the word 'employee' was mentioned who was eligible to study leave with pay with the additional qualification that he must have three years of service in the University, and no distinction had been drawn in the said rule, as to whether the said employee was a regular employee of the University or his employment was on contract basis; that there was no reason to infer from the plain reading of R. 89 that the word employee occurring in the said rule meant a regular employee and the period of his employment should be on regular side and not on contract basis---Although the respondents/lecturers were appointed on contract basis on different dates in the years 2001 to 2005 but their services were regularized in the year 2007---Regular appointment orders of respondents clearly mentioned that their previous service shall be considered for the purpose of seniority, therefore, it could be concluded that the total length of service rendered by the respondents at the time of availing the leave was more than three years, which entitled them to study leave with full pay---When the statute clearly provided that study leave on full pay may be granted to an employee who had put in at least three years' service, the concerned authority ought not to have refused the respondents their right guaranteed under the statute---Appeals were dismissed.

UNIVERSITY OF MALAKAND vs Dr — 2021 PLC(CS) 1168 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLC