If the employee is economically active after termination, they are not entitled to claim benefits back for this period
Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the awarding of reinstated employees full back pay in the civil service structure as well as under the labor law is limited to those who remained unemployed during the period of dismissal or termination from service.
The court further held that a petitioner must clearly state in their petition or appeal that they remained unemployed and were not gainfully employed by any other employer during the relevant period.
According to the facts of the case, an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on allegations of leaking question papers for NUST Entry Test-2011.
He was found guilty of misconduct and was subsequently removed from the post of Assistant Controller of Examinations with effect from 30 March 2012.
The petitioner filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
He then filed a writ petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) which was dismissed based on the respondent’s statement that the petitioner’s case would be heard on genuine and humanitarian grounds.
The IHC therefore directed the respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal sympathetically and in accordance with law.
Following these directions, the petitioner’s pending appeal was allowed by the Department and he was reinstated as Assistant Director (BPS-17) with effect from 30th March, 2012. He was also given full pay and allowances for the period from 30th March, 2012 to 20th December, 2012.
However, the respondent university did not grant full salary and allowances for the subsequent period as the petitioner had been a salaried employee of the University of Engineering and Technology (UET), Taxila, from 21 December 2012 to 5 September 2016.
This period was treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in the written judgment observed that the record clearly showed that the petitioner was in salaried employment at UET Taxila as Deputy Director (QEC) after he was removed from service.
The judgment noted that the concept of back pay in public service and labor law is intended to compensate an employee who remains unemployed during the period of dismissal or termination.
It further reiterated the established legal principle: If a court case establishes that the employee was gainfully employed after termination or dismissal, they are not entitled to claim back benefits for that period.
The court also emphasized that in cases of dismissal or termination, the petitioner must expressly state in the pleadings that they remained unemployed and were not gainfully employed elsewhere.
Referring to the case of Abdul Hafeez Abbasi, the court observed that to be eligible for back pay, an employee must prove to the appropriate forum that they have not earned any income through employment, business or any profit-oriented activity during the appeal.
