Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has held that a suspended official is entitled to receive full pay and other benefits during the period of suspension and declared that suspension does not sever the employer-employee relationship or abrogate contractual rights.
In a four-page judgment authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmad, upholding the Federal Service Tribunal’s (FST) decision in favor of a Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) employee, the SC said “it is now well settled that suspension is not removal, dismissal or termination from service”.
Rather, it is an interim measure which merely suspends the performance of the office while the appointment or contract continues and the relationship between employer and employee remains intact, the judgment states.
“That official therefore continues to hold the position, although without performing his duties. When the contract of service continues to operate, all rights arising therefrom, including the right to full pay, remain enforceable during the period of suspension.”
The employee had served as a senior officer/inspector in the FBR. After completing more than 31 years of qualifying service, he applied for pension on medical grounds. However, his application was not processed by the department. Subsequently, following instructions from the petitioner’s department, he appeared before the medical board for examination. The board believed that he was suffering from several diseases and declared him unfit for further service.
After an enquiry, he was compulsorily retired from service on 12 July 2024 with the observation that the period of his suspension be treated as extraordinary leave without pay and that the salary and allowances paid to him during the period from 06.11.2023 to the imposition of a larger fine be recovered from him.
His departmental appeal remained pending, prompting him to file an appeal with the FST, where the decision was partially in his favor.
The FBR subsequently challenged the FST order before the SC.
A division bench comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad observed while upholding the FST order that the suspension does not nullify the contract; therefore, an employee cannot be legally deprived of remuneration without express legal sanction.
The order notes that when the government issues an employment order, it enters into a binding service contract with the employee. Any unilateral withholding of salary, without authority of law, is against the terms and conditions of such appointment.
Depriving a suspended employee of full pay, wages and services is not only unjust and oppressive but also contrary to the express mandate of Basic Rule 53 (b)”
“In the case of a Government servant under suspension, except as specified in clause (a), he shall be entitled to the full amount of his pay and all other benefits and facilities granted to him under the contract of service during the period of his suspension.”
“Allah, the Almighty, commands justice and forbids oppression, as prescribed in the Holy Qur’an
Similarly, the Holy Qur’an unequivocally forbids unlawful taking of property and lawful earnings, declaring that people should not devour each other’s wealth and should not withhold from others what is rightfully theirs. Similarly, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) emphasized the sanctity of timely remuneration by commanding that the laborer should pay his wages before his sweat dries”.
The judgment further notes that Islam requires the fulfillment of contracts, the protection of lawful earnings, and the prohibition of exploitation and unjust deprivation. Suspension is only a temporary arrangement and is not tantamount to a finding of guilt. Imposing economic deprivation before judgment is tantamount to punishment without proof, which is contrary to Islamic principles of justice.
“The above-quoted verses of the Holy Qur’an and Hadith clearly establish the obligation of timely and full payment of wages”
The court also noted that while interpreting Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules, the Shariat Appellate Bench of the SC had already held that in view of the injunctions of Islam, a suspended government servant must be given full pay along with all other benefits and facilities that he gets under the contract of service.
The judgment held that the board had rightly concluded that a suspended official is entitled to full pay and other services during the period of suspension.
