If the employee is in gainful employment after termination, he or she is not entitled to claim back benefits for that period.
Police officers walk past Pakistan’s Supreme Court building, in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the grant of full back pay to employees reinstated in the civil service structure, as well as under labor laws, is limited to those who remained unemployed during the period of dismissal or termination of service.
The court further held that a petitioner must clearly state in his petition or appeal that he remained unemployed and was not gainfully employed by any other employer during the relevant period.
According to the facts of the case, an investigation was initiated against the petitioner for alleged leakage of question papers for the NUST-2011 entrance examination.
He was found guilty of misconduct and was subsequently dismissed from service as assistant controller of examinations with effect from 30 March 2012.
The petitioner filed an appeal for protection before the Federal Service Court, which was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
He then filed a writ petition before the Islamabad High Court (IHC), which was dismissed based on the respondent’s plea that the petitioner’s case would be considered on merits and on humanitarian grounds.
Accordingly, the IHC directed the respondent to decide the petitioner’s appeal sympathetically and in accordance with law.
Following these directions, the department allowed the petitioner’s pending appeal and he was reinstated in service as Deputy Director (BPS-17) with effect from March 30, 2012. He was also granted full salary and allowances for the period from March 30, 2012 to December 20, 2012.
However, the respondent university did not provide him with full salary and allowances for the subsequent period as the petitioner had worked in the University of Engineering and Technology (UET), Taxila, from December 21, 2012 to September 5, 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 gainfully employed in UET Taxila as Deputy Director (QEC) after his dismissal from service.
The ruling noted that the concept of granting back benefits in the civil service and in labor law is intended to compensate an employee who remains unemployed during the period of dismissal or dismissal.
Furthermore, it reiterated the established legal principle: if court proceedings establish that the employee was in gainful employment after the layoff or dismissal, he or she is not entitled to claim back benefits for that period.
The court also emphasized that in proceedings challenging dismissal or dismissal, the petitioner must explicitly state in pleadings that he remained unemployed and was not gainfully employed elsewhere.
Referring to Abdul Hafeez Abbasi’s case, the court observed that to be entitled to arrears of benefits, an employee must prove before the relevant forum that he did not earn income through employment, business or any profit-making activity during the pendency of the appeal.
