PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, KARACHI Versus HANIF AMIN
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which granted a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) pilot full back benefits for his suspension period. The respondent, a Captain, had been removed from service following criminal charges of gold smuggling, for which he was subsequently acquitted. Although the PIAC reinstated him, it denied him back pay for the intervening period. The core legal question was whether an employee reinstated after suspension and exoneration is entitled to full pay for the suspension period under the governing regulations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that under Article 83 of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, an employee who is suspended and subsequently reinstated without dismissal or demotion is entitled to be treated as on duty. The Court held that since the respondent was exonerated on merits and reinstated with restored seniority, he was entitled to full pay for the suspension period, subject to adjustments for amounts already drawn. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
- Is an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation entitled to full pay for the period of suspension if they are reinstated without dismissal or demotion?
- Does the acquittal of an employee by a court of law on criminal charges entitle them to back benefits upon reinstatement under the P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985?
- Section 10, P.I.A.C. Act 1958
- Article 83, P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations 1985
- Regulation 77, P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations 1985
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.--- By this petition, leave is sought to file appeal against judgment dated 16-2-1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeal of respondent is allowed with declaration that he is entitled to full pay for the period he remained suspended after usual adjustment of the amount already drawn by him according to law.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts in the background are that respondent is serving as Captain in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and was tried in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi on the charge of smuggling of gold but was found not guilty and acquitted vide judgment, dated 12th July, 1988. Competent Authority vide order dated 3-12-1988 removed him from service by invoking summary procedure under section 10 of P.I.A.C. Act, 1958. His departmental appeal was allowed and he was re-instated in service and his original position in seniority was restored but he was deprived of his two years .seniority and intervening period from removal till his re instatement was treated as leave without pay.
3. After completion of two years seniority, respondent was restored to his original position but his request of back benefits was turned down and his representation to the Chairman, P.I.A.C. was also not responded. In such circumstances he approached the Federal Service Tribunal for back benefits and P.I.A.C. filed written objections in which stance was taken that question of payment of salary/back benefits was discretionary and appellant was not entitled as a matter of right to get the same.
4. Article 83 of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, which governs the subject is reproduced as under:--
"83. Action in respect of employees suspended from duty.---If an employee suspended under Regulation 77 is not dismissed or demoted to a lower pay scale/cadre or given an equivalent rank/cadre and the period or suspension shall be treated as on duty."
In the above text the Tribunal has given finding that the respondent was exonerated of the charge by a competent Court of Law on merits and on his re instatement in service he was entitled to full pay for the intervening period. He was suspended under Regulation 77 and his dismissal upon acquittal was changed to re-instatement and seniority was restored to its original position. In A such circumstances respondent was entitled to full pay for the period he remained suspended after usual adjustment of the amount already drawn by him according to law. We are unable to see any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the Service Tribunal with which no interference is warranted. In the result leave is refused and the petition, which has no merits, is I dismissed.
A.A./P-17/S Petition dismissed