Salary of suspension | Payment of your salary and benefits: . 2024 SCMR 541
 |
| Payment of your salary and benefits: The desired declared You have been placed with the Authority Service Bonal accepting your application and ordered to pay salary from 1st September 2013 to 17th May 2015. 2024 SCMR 541 |
سسپنشن کے دورانیے کی تنخواہ روکنے کے تمام احکامات کالعدم قرار دے دیے، اور درخواست گزار کو 01 ستمبر 2013 سے 17 مئی 2015 تک کی مکمل تنخواہ اور واجبات کا حقدار ٹھہرایا۔
تمہید
مقدمے کے حقائق
بنیادی قانونی سوال
F.R. 54 کی تشریح
Consequential Back Benefits کی قانونی حیثیت
سزا کی نوعیت اور اس کے اثرات
No Work, No Pay کے اصول کا اطلاق
ریٹائرمنٹ کے بعد کارروائی اور CSR 417-A
سپریم کورٹ کا حتمی فیصلہ
قانونی اہمیت
Must read judgement
2024 C M R 541
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
RAHIMULLAH KHAN---Petitioner
Versus
DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, SOUTHERN POSTAL REGION, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA and others---Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1066 of 2022, decided on 24th November, 2023.
(Against the Judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 848(P)CS/2019)
Fundamental Rules---
----F.R. 54---Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.), Art. 417-A---Pensionary benefits---Pensionary benefits for intervening period before reinstatement into service---F.R. 54 of the Fundamental Rules provides that in the case of reinstatement of dismissed or removed employee, only the revising or appellate authority may grant him his pay for the period of his absence from duty, and if he is honourably acquitted then, the full pay to which he would have been entitled to, and his period of absence from duty will be treated as a period spent on duty---Though this Rule is not germane to the present controversy, but at the same time, it is a ground reality that neither the department placed anything on the record to show that the Divisional Superintendent, Postal Service Kohat, was actually the revising or appellate authority, nor any document was submitted to show that he was authorised to issue any such letter or take any such decision in the capacity of a revising or appellate authority under the exactitudes of F.R. 54---Petitioner was deprived of his pay for the intervening period, from 01.09.2013 to 17.05.2015, in view of F.R. 54(a) merely on the ground that he was not honourably acquitted by the Tribunal, and the major penalty was modified in view of the judgment passed on 25.05.2016---Still, in tandem, the department is ignoring that the same Tribunal in the same judgment also set aside the impugned orders, and the petitioner was reinstated into service with consequential back benefits---In another judgment in the case of the same petitioner by the same Tribunal on the very next date, i.e., 26.05.2016, the major penalty of withholding of two steps increment for two years without future effect was modified into withholding one increment for one year only---However, in the judgment dated 25.05.2016, the reinstatement order was passed with consequential back benefits, which order is in the field---When the Tribunal has passed the reinstatement order with consequential back benefits, then, in this particular situation, the revising or appellate authority cannot undo or make ineffective the order or judgment passed by the Tribunal for the payment of consequential back benefits---Penalty imposed on the petitioner was only confined to withholding of an increment for a certain period, which does not otherwise mean to withhold his pay for the period he actually rendered his services to the department, and the principle of "no work, no pay" is not applicable when consequential back benefits have been accorded by the Tribunal---Petitioner retired on 18.05.2015 and the letter for withholding his emoluments from 01.09.2013 to 17.05.2015 was issued to him on 14.02.2019, whereas, under Article 417-A of the Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.), the pending disciplinary proceedings could not continue if the officer attains the age of superannuation before the completion of the inquiry---Therefore, in that context too, the pending proceedings if any were abated and there was no justification to issue the letter after considerable period of retirement for withholding the salary with retrospective effect which was totally unjustified and unwarranted---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and the directions issued by the Divisional Superintendent, Postal Service Kohat for withholding the pay of the petitioner were set aside, and he was held entitled to be paid for the period from 01.09.2013 to 17.05.2015 accordingly.
Misbah Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Malik Javed Iqbal Wains, Additional A.G.P. and Shahid Akhtar, D.S. Kohat for Respondents