Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that a suspended public servant is entitled to receive his or her full salary and other benefits during the period of suspension, stating that suspension does not sever the employer-employee relationship or extinguish contractual rights.
In a four-page judgment written by Justice Shakeel Ahmad, upholding the Federal Service Tribunal’s (FST) ruling in favor of an employee of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), the SC said “it is now well settled that suspension does not constitute revocation, dismissal or dismissal.”
Rather, it is an interim measure, which merely suspends the performance of duties while the order of appointment or contract continues to exist and the relationship between employer and employee remains intact, the judgment said.
“As a result, the official continues to occupy his position, but without performing any duties. Once the service contract continues to operate, all rights arising therefrom, including the right to full salary, remain applicable during the period of suspension.”
The employee was serving as a senior clerk/inspector in the FBR. After completing more than 31 years of eligible service, he requested medical retirement. However, his application was not studied by the ministry. Subsequently, on the instructions of the requesting department, he appeared before a medical board for examination. The Commission found that he was suffering from several illnesses and declared him unfit to continue his service.
Following an investigation, he was automatically retired on July 12, 2024, provided that the period of his suspension be treated as extraordinary leave without pay, and that the pay and allowances paid to him during the period from 06.11.2023 until the imposition of a major sanction be recovered from him.
His departmental appeal remained unanswered, which prompted him to file an appeal before the TSF, where the decision was partly favorable to him.
The FBR subsequently challenged the FST order before the SC.
A division bench comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad, while upholding the FST order, noted that the suspension does not extinguish the contract; therefore, an employee cannot be deprived of legal remuneration without express legal sanction.
The order clarifies that when the government issues an appointment order, it enters into a binding service contract with the employee. Any unilateral withholding of salary, without the authority of law, is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of such appointment.
Depriving a suspended employee of his full pay, salary and service-connected benefits is not only unjust and oppressive, but also contrary to the express mandate of Fundamental Rule 53(b).”
“In the case of a suspended public servant, other than that specified in clause (a), he shall be entitled to the full amount of his salary and all other benefits and facilities provided to him under the contract of service, during the period of his suspension.”
“Allah, the Almighty, commands justice and forbids oppression, as commanded in the Holy Quran.
Likewise, the Holy Quran unequivocally prohibits the unlawful deprivation of property and lawful income, stating that people should not devour one another’s wealth and should not deny others what is rightfully theirs. In the same vein, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) emphasized the sanctity of timely remuneration by ordering that the worker should receive his salary before his sweat dries. »
The judgment further notes that Islam requires the enforcement of contracts, the protection of lawful income, and the prohibition of exploitation and unjust deprivation. The suspension is only a temporary arrangement and does not constitute a finding of guilt. Imposing financial deprivation before trial amounts to punishment without evidence, which is contrary to Islamic principles of justice.
“The verses of the Holy Quran and the Hadith cited above clearly establish the obligation of full and timely payment of salary”
The court also noted that while interpreting Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules, the SC Shariah Appellate Bench had already held that in light of the injunctions of Islam, a suspended public servant must be paid his full salary along with all other benefits and facilities provided to him under the contract of service.
The judgment held that the court correctly concluded that a suspended civil servant was entitled to his full salary and other benefits during the period of suspension.
