Employee cannot be penalised for procedural irregularities of employer: LHC

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that due to some procedural lapses in the initial placement, diminishing pensionary and other retrial benefits of a government employee without finding of any misconduct or illegality on his part is manifestly disproportionate and arbitrary.

The employee cannot be penalized for alleged procedural irregularities attributable to the employer, particularly when no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment has been levelled against him, the court added.

The court also observed that where an employee lawfully performs the duties of a higher grade pursuant to a valid notification and continues to hold the same without its withdrawal during service, he acquires vested rights attached to that grade.

Such rights cannot be arbitrarily curtailed, particularly at the verge of retirement, as it directly affects pensionary and other benefits, the court added.

The court passed this order in a petition of an employee of health department Karam Elahi challenging the decision of secretary special healthcare who denied to issue his retirement notification as Chief Dental Technician in BS-16.

The court observed that the principle of locus poenitentiae bars the authority from retracting a decision which has taken legal effect, unless it is shown to have been obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or illegality.

Further, Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 requires that administrative decisions affecting vested rights or legitimate expectations must be supported by reasons, the court added.

The court said, in the present case, the petitioner has lawfully discharged duties in BPS-16 for several years, acquired vested rights therein and objections raised in the impugned order do not negate his entitlement to retirement in the grade held.

The court said the impugned order merely rejects the petitioner’s claim as meritless and directs review of records, without addressing prior service, up-gradations, or comparative treatment of other officers, amounting to a violation of natural justice.

The court said the impugned order reflects neither a proper appraisal of the petitioner’s service record nor a lawful determination of the alleged irregularity in his placement in BPS-16.

The court said a vague reference to policy constraints or absence of concurrence from the Finance Department, without initiating any corrective proceedings during the petitioner’s tenure, cannot retrospectively divest him of a grade in which he admittedly served for years.

Even otherwise, if the department was of the view that the petitioner’s up-gradation was irregular, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to take timely corrective action in accordance with law, after affording due process, the court added.

The court, therefore, allowed the petition and directed the department to issue petitioner’s retirement notification in BS-16 with benefits.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026