SC ties back pay to jobless stint

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has ruled that granting reinstated employees full back pay in the civil service structure, as well as under labour laws, is limited to those who remained jobless 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 jobless 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 the NUST Entry Test-2011.

He was found guilty of misconduct and was subsequently removed from service as assistant controller of examinations with effect from March 30, 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 disposed of based on the respondent's statement that the petitioner's case would be considered on merits and humanitarian grounds.

Consequently, the IHC directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's appeal sympathetically and in accordance with the law.

Following these directions, the petitioner's pending appeal was allowed by the department, and he was reinstated in service as Assistant Director (BPS-17) with effect from March 30, 2012. He was also granted full pay and allowances for the period from March 30, 2012 to December 20, 2012.

However, the respondent university did not grant full pay and allowances for the subsequent period, as the petitioner had been gainfully employed at 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 authored judgment, observed that the record clearly showed the petitioner was gainfully employed at UET Taxila as deputy director (QEC) after his removal from service.

The judgment noted that the concept of granting back benefits in civil service and labour law is meant to compensate an employee who remains jobless during the period of dismissal or termination.

It further reiterated the settled legal principle: if court proceedings establish that the employee was gainfully employed after termination or dismissal, they are not entitled to claim back benefits for that period.

The court also emphasised that in proceedings challenging dismissal or termination, the petitioner must explicitly state in the pleadings that they remained jobless and were not gainfully employed elsewhere.

Referring to the case of Abdul Hafeez Abbasi, the court observed that, to be entitled to back benefits, an employee must demonstrate before the relevant forum that they earned no income through employment, business, or any profit-oriented activity during the appeal's pendency.