SC reopens teacher back-benefits case
The Supreme Court has set aside a Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal judgment and directed authorities to reconsider the case of a reinstated school teacher for grant of back benefits under Fundamental Rule (FR) 54.
The court held that an employee honourably acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to full pay and service benefits for the period of absence, subject to lawful determination by the competent authority.
The ruling was authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi also on the bench, in a civil appeal arising out of a 2019 decision of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Swat Camp Court.
The appellant, Mian Abdul Saeed, a Secondary School Teacher (BPS-17) posted at Government High School Gokand, District Buner, was suspended on December 31, 2012 after being implicated in an FIR under Sections 302, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
He was subsequently convicted by an additional district judge in Buner on December 19, 2013, leading to his removal from service on July 6, 2015. However, on appeal, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) acquitted him on December 11, 2017.
Following his acquittal, he sought reinstatement along with back benefits. The departmental authority reinstated him through an order dated April 19, 2018 but denied back benefits and treated the intervening period as leave without pay.
His appeal before the Service Tribunal was only partially accepted, maintaining the denial of back benefits and treating the absence period as leave of the kind due, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
At the leave stage, the apex court examined whether a civil servant honourably acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to full back benefits under FR 54.
During proceedings, counsel for the appellant argued that once a civil servant is acquitted, he is entitled to full salary and benefits as if he had never been removed from service.
It was contended that the appellant’s removal was based solely on his conviction and no departmental inquiry had been conducted. Therefore, denial of back benefits was unlawful and contrary to Fundamental Rules.
The K-P additional advocate general argued that since the appellant did not actually perform duty during the intervening period, he was not entitled to back benefits, and the period was rightly treated as leave without pay.
He further submitted that under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, the competent authority had discretion in granting arrears. After examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant was initially suspended after his arrest and later removed from service upon conviction.Read More
