The Supreme Court has overturned a ruling by the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal and ordered authorities to reconsider whether a reinstated school teacher should receive back benefits under Fundamental Rule (FR) 54.
The court ruled that a civil servant who is honourably acquitted of criminal charges may be entitled to full salary and service benefits for the period spent out of service, subject to a lawful determination by the competent authority.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar authored the judgment, while Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi sat on the bench hearing the civil appeal arising from a 2019 decision of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal’s Swat Camp Court.
£190m Case: Adiala Jail and Imran Khan’s Lawyers Clash Over Power of Attorney
The case involved Mian Abdul Saeed, a Secondary School Teacher (BPS-17) posted at Government High School Gokand in District Buner.
Authorities suspended Saeed on December 31, 2012 after police implicated him in a criminal case under multiple sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, including murder and attempted murder charges.
An additional district judge in Buner convicted him on December 19, 2013, and the education department removed him from service on July 6, 2015.
However, the Peshawar High Court later overturned the conviction and acquitted Saeed on December 11, 2017.
Following the acquittal, Saeed requested reinstatement along with full salary and service benefits for the period of his removal.
The department reinstated him through an order issued on April 19, 2018 but denied back benefits and treated the intervening period as leave without pay.
Saeed challenged the decision before the Service Tribunal, which partially accepted his appeal but maintained the denial of arrears and classified the absence period as leave of the kind due.
He then approached the Supreme Court.
During proceedings, Saeed’s counsel argued that his removal had relied entirely on the criminal conviction and that no departmental inquiry had taken place. The counsel maintained that once acquitted, the teacher should receive salary and benefits as though the removal had never occurred.
The Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa additional advocate general argued that Saeed had not performed official duties during the disputed period and therefore should not receive back benefits. The provincial government also maintained that the competent authority retained discretion under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973.
After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court noted that the teacher had first been suspended following his arrest and later removed solely because of the conviction. The court directed authorities to reassess the matter in accordance with the law and the principles set out under FR 54.
