Contractual employee

2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Contractual employeeBreach of contract by the employerTerms and conditions of contract, enforcement ofConstitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise ofConstitutional petitionMaintainability

High Court exercised its Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter due to element of patent illegality and perversity apparent on the record

Fact in brevity were that the petitioners were employed on contract under the project supervised by Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and were later on constrained to filed the present constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution after their salaries were unilaterally reduced by the respondents through an office memorandum and also deducted previously paid salaries and issued revised contracts

The petitioners argued that the executive could not retrospectively alter or rescind vested rights accrued under valid contracts without lawful authority

Held:

The office memorandum in question for implementation of the revised standard pay package for the project staff directly recruited for development projects could not be made effective onto the petitioners without obtaining the mandatory approval from the competent forum

Prior approval from competent forum was essential before implementing the revised standard pay package on the petitioners

Since the salary slips were issued earlier in accordance with the pay package approved, the subsequent instructions/orders of Finance Division could not be made applicable on salaries fixed prior in time, especially in the absence of approval from the competent forum

Respondents, under the law, were neither empowered to recover the over payment drawn by the employees of the project, nor were they authorized to withhold the salaries of the petitioners, especially when the terms and conditions were settled inter se the parties, therefore, the same were binding upon them

The remunerations fixed by respondent No. 2 under the contracts with the petitioners were completely independent of any Finance Division's orders

Thus, any subsequent order by the executive could not threaten the vested rights of the petitioners already accrued under the settled contracts

Action of recovering the over-payments drawn by the employees of the project was highly unwarranted, unjustified and illegal

Issuance of subsequent office memorandum could not renounce and/or retract the remuneration already settled earlier

Office memorandum in question was not applicable on the petitioners, as the same was never approved by the competent forum,

The act of ordering recovery of alleged over-payments from the petitioners, and the arbitrary implementation of the said office memorandum was thus perverse, unlawful, and unjust, as it infringed upon the vested rights of the petitioners which had accrued under the mutually settled terms and conditions between the parties

Hence, the act of reducing the salaries of the petitioners was thus illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio

Impugned letter was set aside, with strict directions to the respondents to refrain from recovering the over-payments from the petitioners

The respondents were further directed to release the amounts already recovered from the petitioners by returning them forthwith

Despite the matter relating to breach/enforcement of terms and conditions of a contract, the present Constitutional petition was maintainable given the patent illegality and perversity floating on the face of record

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Contractual employeeSubsequent reduction in salary against the settled pay fixed under the contractLocus poenitentiae, doctrine ofApplicability

The terms and conditions already settled between the parties, qua fixation of salaries, rendered the contracts as past and closed transactions by virtue of which certain vested rights were already accrued; this further brings forth the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, whereby the Executive is barred from unilaterally rescinding and retrieving the benefit availed by its recipients

Thus, any subsequent unilateral decisions taken by the State functionaries cannot supersede and/or replace the already agreed upon stipulations contained in the contracts to the disadvantage of the employees.

2022 SCMR 964 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Time bound projectsContractual employeeRegularization in service

Employees of time bound projects have no automatic right of regularization.

2022 PLC 198 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Contractual employeeRegularization, right ofScope

Contractual employees have no vested right to regularization, but their regularization may be considered subject to the fitness, suitability and the applicable laws, rules and regulations of the Department

Where a contractual employee wishes to be regularized, he must demonstrate statutory basis for such a claim, in the absence of which, relief cannot be granted solely on the principle of "similarly placed persons".

2021 PLC(CS) 1417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Contractual employeeMaster and servant, relationshipPrincipleContractual employee could not seek extension in contractual service or for that matter reinstatement in service

Employee in the present case, could only seek damages through the Civil Court against arbitrary dismissal, since his relationship with his employer was governed by the principle of "master and servant".

2019 PLC(CS) 155 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Contractual employeesPrinciple of estoppelScope

Appellants impugned order of High Court, whereby their writ petition against the termination of their contract of service, was dismissed

Contention of appellants, inter alia, was that their termination before expiry of their contract of service, was illegal and unconstitutional

Validity

Perusal of the notification of appointment, which was accepted by appellants, revealed that the contract of service could be terminated without assigning of any reason either on 30 days' prior notice or payment of one month's salary

Appellants, therefore, by their own conduct, were estopped from challenging their termination orders, as a person who accepted the conditions of a notification and assumed charge of his office, subsequently could not turn around and claim relief in negation of such conditions

No illegality existed in impugned order

Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 PLC(CS) 1270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceContractual employeeRegularizationChange in nomenclature of postEffect

Change in nomenclature should not be used an excuse to deprive the employees from the benefit of regularization of their services

Petitioners/employees were not considered for regularization on the basis of change in nomenclature when most of the petitioners would not be eligible to be re-employed

Right to be regularized had accrued to the petitioners/employees at such a belated stage

High Court directed the authorities to consider the cases of petitioners of regularization.

2014 PLC(CS) 1270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 9 & 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceContractual employeeRegularizationRight of livelihoodChange in qualification for the postEffect

Subsequent change in policy requiring different qualifications could not affect the right of the petitioners/employees from being extended the benefit of regularization as at the time of appointment they possessed relevant qualifications

Extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was always exercised with compassion and could not disregard the fact that non-regularization of service of the petitioners/employees was an act which was violation of right of livelihood.

2014 PLC(CS) 29 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityCivil serviceContractual employeeTermination of contractClaim of re-instatementScope

Where the services of contract employee were terminated before time, at best, he could claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service

Constitutional petition was not maintainable.

2013 PLC(CS) 987 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityCivil serviceContractual employeeSeniorityNon-statutory service rulesRegularization of servicesFixation of ante dated seniority from the date of initial appointment

Petitioners were regularized in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court through departmental Selection Committee and they were placed on the bottom of seniority list under the relevant rules

Seniority could not be fixed higher than the other regular employees who had already been working in the cadre

Constitutional petition was allowed

Department was directed to fix the seniority of petitioners from ante-date as per the recommendations of Committee.