Contractual service

2024 PLC(CS) 178 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199, 205 & Fifth Sched., Paras. 2 & 3Civil servicePensionObject, purpose, scope and entitlementContractual service

Petitioner, after completing his contractual appointment as Chairman Federal Service Tribunal for three years, claimed his entitlement of pension equivalent to retired judge of High Court

Contention of petitioner was that he had served on different public assignments on contractual basis and the length of such services was sufficient to entitle him for pensionary benefits

Validity

Paragraphs 2 & 3 of Fifth Schedule to Art. 205 of the Constitution either read separately / conjunctively or disjunctively, do not alter/change in any manner the requirement of minimum five years length of actual service for every judge of High Court as one of the basic condition to earn right to pension

Right to pension is neither absolute nor unqualified

Pension is not a bounty for the State/employer to servant/employee

Such right is tailored on the premise and resolution that employee serves his employer in the days of his ability and capacity and during the former's debility, the latter compensates him for the services so rendered

Right to pension has to be earned and for the attainment of which condition of length of service is the most relevant and purposive

Contractual offices held by petitioner, even if considered aggregately (which could not have been done under a law) or separately, utterly independent of office of the Chairman Federal Service Tribunal, did not make him entitled to the right to pension under any law

Office of the Chairman Federal Service Tribunal was term-based and contractual in nature, plus it did not confer any right to pension upon petitioner

Case of retired judges of Federal Shariat Court et al had no imaginable parallel with the case of the petitioner to bring him at par with them

All judges of Federal Shariat Court were permanent judges of respective High Courts and had received pensions in that capacity

Petitioner never served against any permanent or regular job, not to mention his lack of qualification i.e. not completing minimum qualifying service of 5 years to claim pension

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as such position was unassailable in law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 PLC(CS) 1378 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Master and servantContractual serviceRegularization, plea of

Petitioners contended that they were well qualified and having requisite experience after the initial appointment; that joining fresh process with other candidates was unfair; that employment was the source of livelihood and the right of livelihood was an undeniable right to a person; that they served the respondent/department for a long period and deserved to be given a fair chance of regularization in the given situation

Counsel of authorities contended that High Court lacked jurisdiction to revive/amend/alter contracts; that there was no vested right to seek regularization for employees hired on a contractual basis unless there was/is a legal and statutory basis for the same; that contractual employees had no automatic right to be regularized unless specifically provided for in law; and that the relationship of contractual employees was governed by principles of master and servant

Held, that petitioners had initially been appointed openly/transparently through the prescribed competitive process, hence, fulfilled the precondition for appointment as such

Petitioners' status as contract employees had ended once Finance Department of the Provincial Government had sanctioned the regular posts to run the affairs of respondent/department across the Province

Petitioners refereed to the summary floated by the respondents to the Competent Authority with the proposal that the services of the petitioners might be shifted from the Secretariat side to Field side so that the contractual staff of internal audit might be regularized

Excerpt of the minutes of the meetings of the Provincial Cabinet was perused which verified the said proposal

Constitutional petition was allowed and respondent/authority was directed to regularize the services of the petitioners accordingly.

2017 PLC(CS) 878 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Contractual service

Any person who had been appointed on contract basis could not as of right claim regularization on permanent basis.

2015 PLC(CS) 1078 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Arts. 71 & 81Writ petitionCivil serviceContractual serviceTerminationPetitioner, initially was appointed as Excise and Taxation Officer in BS-17 on contract basis for one year

Period of one year was extended and service of the petitioner was supposed to continue till the recruitment of regular incumbent, however, services of the petitioner, were terminated without issuing him show-cause notice, and without giving him opportunity of hearing

Serious allegations of corruption and misappropriation of government funds, were levelled against the petitioner

No Inquiry Committee, was appointed to probe the said allegations

Reliance was placed by the authorities, on the report submitted by the Chief Minister's Inspection Team, on the basis of which the termination of the petitioner, was ordered

Said report, could not be a substitute for departmental inquiry

Petitioner after his appointment, being entitled to continue his service till any recruitment made by Public Service Commission; a valuable legal right was created in favour of petitioner

Authorities, though were empowered to cancel/rescind the notification, rules, laws and orders, but they could not exercise the power under the principle of 'locus poenitentiae'

Authorities, did not follow the service rules, and failed to provide a fair opportunity to petitioner of being heard and defend the allegations levelled against him

Condemning the petitioner unheard just on the basis of a fact finding report, tantamounted to miscarriage of justice

Impugned order, was set aside with direction that the petitioner be reinstated in his position with back benefits.

2014 PLC(CS) 393 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 184(3), 199 & Pt. II, Ch. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28]Constitutional petition before the High Court/Supreme CourtMaintainabilityService grievanceContractual servicePerson/employee not governed by statutory rules of service

Cases where the employment/service(s) was not regulated by any law, but by non-statutory rules or contractual stipulations, and no specific forum was designated for the resolution of such service issues, an infringement of any condition of such a contract shall at the most entitle and clothe the employee to avail his ordinary remedy for the breach of contract and wrongful action against him, before the court of plenary jurisdiction

In such a situation, it could not be urged that the fundamental right(s) of the employee had been violated conferring upon him a right to enforce the same in terms of Art.199 and/or under Art.184(3) of the Constitution.

2013 SCMR 1383 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 184(3) & 199 & Pt. II, Ch. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28]Constitutional petition before the High Court/Supreme CourtMaintainabilityService grievanceContractual servicePerson/employee not governed by statutory rules of service

Cases where the employment/service(s) was not regulated by any law, but by non-statutory rules or contractual stipulations, and no specific forum was designated for the resolution of such service issues, an infringement of any condition of such a contract shall at the most entitle and clothe the employee to avail his ordinary remedy for the breach of contract and wrongful action against him, before the court of plenary jurisdiction

In such a situation, it could not be urged that the fundamental right(s) of the employee had been violated conferring upon him a right to enforce the same in terms of Art.199 and/or under Art.184(3) of the Constitution.