K. Male'
|
14 Feb 2017 | Tue 17:44
(Right) Former CSC chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan appointed as deputy Malaysian High Commission by President Abdulla Yameen.
(Right) Former CSC chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan appointed as deputy Malaysian High Commission by President Abdulla Yameen.
Presidents Office
CSC Ex-Chair Appeal
Court lowers compensation for disgraced ex-CSC chair
PG appealed the case to the High Court in 2016, stating that the sum is unjust.
Mohamed Fahmy Hassan had originally asked for MVR 6,000,000.
He was removed from his position on sexual harassment allegations.

The High Court has ruled to lower the compensation to Mohamed Fahmy Hassan, a former Civil Service Commission chair voted out of his position by the Parliament for sexual harassment.

The parliament had passed a no-confidence vote against Hassan in 2012 after allegations against him of having touched a female employee on her stomach and making unprovoked remarks about her weight surfaced.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled against the parliament vote, stating that the parliament could only take disciplinary action against Hassan after the allegations have passed through a court of law.

The Supreme Court ruling had allowed Hassan to file a case with the Civil Court asking for MVR 6,000,000 in salaries and benefits – as compensation for termination of his employment.

However, the Civil Court had ruled that Hassan is only owed MVR 421,000, a verdict that sparked much controversy and accusations of authorities encouraging sexual harassment.

The High Court had on Monday ruled that Hassan only has to be compensated for three months and 10 days, and given how President Abdulla Yameen had appointed Hassan as the Deputy Malaysian High Commissioner, he had not suffered the losses stated in the Civil Court ruling.

While the High Court had lowered the sum to MVR 171,333, the remaining MVR 250,400 accounted for 20 months and 20 days remaining in his term. The Court had ordered that Hassan be paid the amount within 30 days.

The Prosecutor General’s Office filed an appeal with the High Court in 2016 to lower the sum, stating that Civil Court ruling was unjust.  

Last updated at: 10 months ago
Reviewed by: Rushdha Rasheed
- comment