Employment

In 2016, WAPDA advertised the same post and directed him to appear in the NTS test held on 13.11.2016, in which he obtained 68% marks

As other candidates from the same batch were regularized by February 2017, the respondent sought similar treatment

Following a re-interview on 27.08.2021, he was reappointed through a fresh engagement letter dated 01.09.2021, after which he sought pay protection and regularization from his earlier service period

Upon WAPDA's inaction, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed his claim by directing that his regularization and seniority be reckoned from February 2017

The department/WAPDA, subsequently, challenge Tribunal's decision before the Supreme Court

Held: Federal Government's recruitment policy dated 22.10.2014 was issued to prevent open- ended processes

Rule XIII of the said policy required recruitment to be finalized within sixty (60) days of the advertisement, later extended to ninety (90) days by amendment dated 21.09.2017

In the present case, the respondent was regularized nearly five years after the advertisement, well beyond the prescribed timeline

The respondent continuously officiated on a sanctioned grade-17 post from 02.12.2013 without break

If the post was permanent throughout, then serial No.7(5) Chapter 4 of the Estacode supported treating him against that permanent vacancy from his initial engagement, subject to completion of the notified competitive process

At the very least, once he cleared the NTS test, the petitioner could not lawfully push effect to 2021

The aforementioned provision explicitly cut off delay beyond the later of those two dates

Result sheets of medical staff from the same batch indicated that candidates even below 80% marks were regularized in February 2017

Regularizing similarly placed candidates from the same NTS batch within three (3) months of the test while withholding the respondent's regularization for five years constituted discrimination in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution

Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was well-reasoned

No substantial question of law of public importance within the ambit of Article 212(3) of the Constitution was raised

Leave to appeal was refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

He acquired an LLB degree in 1992 and thereafter sought grant of two advance increments under the incentive scheme for railways officers and subordinates, 1966, and the 'general scheme for grant of advance increments, 1996'

Respondent's representation was rejected by the finance department on the ground that the 1966 Scheme had been abolished and that his qualification did not fall within the 1996 Scheme, whereupon the Federal Service Tribunal allowed his claim under the 1966 Scheme

The issue requiring determination before the Supreme Court was “whether the accounts officer of the 'audit department' holding an LLB degree was legally entitled to advance increments under either of the aforesaid schemes”?

Held: No benefit under the Scheme, 1966 had been extended to officers of the audit department, and an LLB qualification was not recognized under the General Scheme, 1996, therefore, the respondent's case did not fall within the scope of either scheme

The benefit extended by the Service Tribunal under the Scheme, 1966 was thus unsustainable

Moreover, an LLB degree was not equivalent to a master's degree

Respondent was not entitled to advance increments under either of the schemes

Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, in circumstances.

Courts, while the ultimate interpreters of legality, must exercise judicial restraint in matters where the law vests policy discretion or administrative choice in an executive or institutional authority

The principle of institutional autonomy thus guards against judicial overreach, ensuring that policy formation remains the prerogative of the executive, and that courts confine themselves to ensuring legality, rationality, and procedural fairness within the limits set by law.

Exclusion of names of the petitioners from the list of new appointees forwarded to the Bank for opening of salary accounts without withdrawal/cancellation of appointment orders

Petitioners filed constitutional petitions for releasing their salaries, which were dismissed by the High Court for want of jurisdiction owing to questions involving resolution of disputed/controversial facts

Validity

While dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the disputed question of fact could not be resolved, it must also be considered that to effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under this Article, the alternate remedy, if any available, is not only to be adequate but also equally efficacious under the law and commensurate to the same purpose which is sought to be achieved through a Constitutional petition under Article 199

Extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts

Once the appointment letters were issued without any rider or condition, then there was no question of enlistment of the names of the petitioners in the provisional list, as apparently, all codal formalities were completed before issuance of the appointment letters, which was the standard practice and procedure in the recruitment process of government departments

Petitioners did not raise any factual controversy or disputed question of fact, but approached the High Court for releasing their salaries and relied on their appointment letters which were not denied or controverted in the comments filed by the respondents

Even if the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners without satisfying or complying with the codal formalities, the High Court, rather than outrightly non-suiting the petitioners, or without indulging in the realm or sphere of factual controversy, could have easily called upon the concerned Department on the basis of available documents, to make inquiries regarding the veracity and legitimacy of the appointment letters; how the appointment letters were issued; who issued the appointment letters and how these were recalled; whether the appointment letters could be recalled without any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of being heard; and who was actually responsible of issuing the appointment letters (if the codal formalities were not fulfilled) and what departmental action was proposed or taken against the responsible persons who misled and defrauded the petitioners

Petitioners were made the scapegoat and victim of severe departmental actions and highhandedness while the actual wrongdoers and malefactors were always exonerated

Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances.

Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws

Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty

Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"

Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed.

In the disciplinary proceedings under the Industrial Relations Laws, the primary burden rests on the employer to prove the misconduct so that the matter be decided on preponderance of the evidence which is so clear, credible and gives support to the finale with little room for doubt

By and large, when any employee challenges his termination or dismissal from service, the burden often shifts upon the employer to establish that the action was based on independent, unbiased and logical reasons and while terminating the employee or dismissing the employee from service, the principle of natural justice and due process was religiously followed and the employer has to produce substantial evidence to persuade the court that the decision was not motivated by any revenge, bias and/or with any prejudiced aspiration

To prove the guilt on the charges of misconduct is a serious matter and at least for the delinquent, the stakes are much higher than the employer, therefore, before declaring guilty, due diligence should be made.

As soon as the act of misconduct is established and the employee is found guilty after due process of law, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law

The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not proportionate with the seriousness of the act of misconduct is not adequate but the order must show that the court and tribunal has applied its mind and exercised its discretion in a structured and lawful manner

Court or tribunal in exceptional or appropriate cases or circumstances, may examine the quantum of punishment to figure out the proportionality and reasonableness and may also nullify or overturn such punishment if found out of proportion vis-à-vis the act of misconduct and in this scenario, the punishment awarded by the competent authority may be revisited and converted into some lesser or alternative punishment if provided under the law but in order to exercise such jurisdiction for mitigation, the set of circumstances of each and every case have to be considered minutely.

It is the prerogative and inherent right of employer to trigger the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law to address the misconduct of committed by any employee but the course of action for encountering any act of misconduct should stick to the principle of natural justice and the set of guidelines provided to ensure due process of law.

Regardless of the fact that inquiry officer in the domestic inquiry cannot be equated with well-trained judicial officer, the bare minimum requirements of natural justice and due process are commonsensical and essential elements for the conscience of inquiry officer before finding an employee guilty of misconduct and sending inquiry report/recommendations to the management.

Employment opportunity for sons / daughters of in-service (Regular) deceased and retired / GHS / VHS Optants in clerical and non-clerical cadre

Good management

Principles

Appellants applied to National Bank of Pakistan for their appointments on the basis of deceased employees' quota

Validity

Good management exemplifies and represents a set of distinctive and standards including wisdom, uprightness, empathy, fairness, non-discriminatory employment policies, equal opportunity employer, congenial working environment which enables to carry on and manage the affairs of institutions / establishment effectively

Despite prevailing policy, applications of petitioners were ignored and no consideration was made for their appointment in view of the policy

If management circulated any beneficial employment / recruitment policy then such policy should have been implemented equitably and even handedly across the board and not through cherry-picking to deprive its benefits to deserving contenders

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and remanded the matter to the authorities to consider applications of both the appellants moved in years 2019 and 2022 and decide fate of their applications in accordance with the policy of the Bank prevailing at that time

Appeal was allowed.

It is the prerogative and inherent right of employer to trigger the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law to address the misconduct of committed by any employee but the course of action for encountering any act of misconduct should stick to the principle of natural justice and the set of guidelines provided to ensure due process of law.

In the disciplinary proceedings under the Industrial Relations Laws, the primary burden rests on the employer to prove the misconduct so that the matter be decided on preponderance of the evidence which is so clear, credible and gives support to the finale with little room for doubt

By and large, when any employee challenges his termination or dismissal from service, the burden often shifts upon the employer to establish that the action was based on independent, unbiased and logical reasons and while terminating the employee or dismissing the employee from service, the principle of natural justice and due process was religiously followed and the employer has to produce substantial evidence to persuade the court that the decision was not motivated by any revenge, bias and/or with any prejudiced aspiration

To prove the guilt on the charges of misconduct is a serious matter and at least for the delinquent, the stakes are much higher than the employer, therefore, before declaring guilty, due diligence should be made.

Regardless of the fact that inquiry officer in the domestic inquiry cannot be equated with well-trained judicial officer, the bare minimum requirements of natural justice and due process are commonsensical and essential elements for the conscience of inquiry officer before finding an employee guilty of misconduct and sending inquiry report/recommendations to the management.

As soon as the act of misconduct is established and the employee is found guilty after due process of law, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law

The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not proportionate with the seriousness of the act of misconduct is not adequate but the order must show that the court and tribunal has applied its mind and exercised its discretion in a structured and lawful manner

Court or tribunal in exceptional or appropriate cases or circumstances, may examine the quantum of punishment to figure out the proportionality and reasonableness and may also nullify or overturn such punishment if found out of proportion vis-à-vis the act of misconduct and in this scenario, the punishment awarded by the competent authority may be revisited and converted into some lesser or alternative punishment if provided under the law but in order to exercise such jurisdiction for mitigation, the set of circumstances of each and every case have to be considered minutely.

Pension is not a matter of bounty, charity, or benevolence, it is a right protected under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution and inseparably linked with the right to life, dignity and livelihood, for without sustenance in old age, these rights ring hollow

It should be taken more seriously for those public servants for whom it is a crystallized return on years of faithful service, a form of deferred wages earned through the sweat, labour, and loyalty of an employee

It embodies the principle that those who serve must not be cast aside in their twilight years

To deny or withhold pension is to strip a person of the security they have justly earned, leaving them exposed to indignity, vulnerability, and want

Therefore this right must be protected in the shape of the grant of pension that is not only adequate but also predictable

Moreover, an element of respect and empathy is to be maintained while granting pension which would be inconsonance with the values that our Constitution espouses with dignity as the highest constitutional value

The law itself stands as ashield to protect the rights of such employees, ensuring that long earned entitlements are not eroded by institutional caprice

To trifle with pension is, therefore, to trifle with constitutional justice itself.

Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws

Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty

Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"

Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed.

Exclusion of names of the petitioners from the list of new appointees forwarded to the Bank for opening of salary accounts without withdrawal/cancellation of appointment orders

Petitioners filed constitutional petitions for releasing their salaries, which were dismissed by the High Court for want of jurisdiction owing to questions involving resolution of disputed/controversial facts

Validity

While dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the disputed question of fact could not be resolved, it must also be considered that to effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under this Article, the alternate remedy, if any available, is not only to be adequate but also equally efficacious under the law and commensurate to the same purpose which is sought to be achieved through a Constitutional petition under Article 199

Extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts

Once the appointment letters were issued without any rider or condition, then there was no question of enlistment of the names of the petitioners in the provisional list, as apparently, all codal formalities were completed before issuance of the appointment letters, which was the standard practice and procedure in the recruitment process of government departments

Petitioners did not raise any factual controversy or disputed question of fact, but approached the High Court for releasing their salaries and relied on their appointment letters which were not denied or controverted in the comments filed by the respondents

Even if the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners without satisfying or complying with the codal formalities, the High Court, rather than outrightly non-suiting the petitioners, or without indulging in the realm or sphere of factual controversy, could have easily called upon the concerned Department on the basis of available documents, to make inquiries regarding the veracity and legitimacy of the appointment letters; how the appointment letters were issued; who issued the appointment letters and how these were recalled; whether the appointment letters could be recalled without any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of being heard; and who was actually responsible of issuing the appointment letters (if the codal formalities were not fulfilled) and what departmental action was proposed or taken against the responsible persons who misled and defrauded the petitioners

Petitioners were made the scapegoat and victim of severe departmental actions and highhandedness while the actual wrongdoers and malefactors were always exonerated

Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances.

Employment opportunity for sons / daughters of in-service (Regular) deceased and retired / GHS / VHS Optants in clerical and non-clerical cadre

Good management

Principles

Appellants applied to National Bank of Pakistan for their appointments on the basis of deceased employees' quota

Validity

Good management exemplifies and represents a set of distinctive and standards including wisdom, uprightness, empathy, fairness, non-discriminatory employment policies, equal opportunity employer, congenial working environment which enables to carry on and manage the affairs of institutions / establishment effectively

Despite prevailing policy, applications of petitioners were ignored and no consideration was made for their appointment in view of the policy

If management circulated any beneficial employment / recruitment policy then such policy should have been implemented equitably and even handedly across the board and not through cherry-picking to deprive its benefits to deserving contenders

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and remanded the matter to the authorities to consider applications of both the appellants moved in years 2019 and 2022 and decide fate of their applications in accordance with the policy of the Bank prevailing at that time

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioner was aggrieved of restricting female candidates from participating in selection process of Prosecuting Inspectors

Held: Practice of debarring women from holding positions of Prosecuting Inspector not only contravened the principles of justice and equality but also perpetuated patriarchal norms, misogyny and outdated societal customs

It was time to shatter such age-old barriers and uphold the progressive and forward-looking Constitutional ideals of liberty, equality and social justice

We should bid farewell to gender biases and prejudices and instead pave the way for realization of such steadfast Constitutional principles by welcoming women's participation in all aspects of life with honour and dignity

Condition laid down in selection process was tantamount to discrimination which was not permissible under the Constitution and had gone against the Constitutional mandate of equality and safeguarding against discrimination in service

High Court declared the condition whereby only male candidates were declared eligible and female had been debarred as illegal and un-Constitutional

High Court directed Balochistan Public Service Commission to re-advertise the posts of Prosecuting Inspectors, inviting all interested candidates without any discrimination

High Court directed Balochistan Government to take immediate steps to strengthen the office of Public Service Commission on the status of women in order to eliminate all forms of discrimination in existing laws

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Brief facts were that the petitioners applied for the posts of Constable (BPS-07) and successfully cleared the written test, interview, and physical assessments, and their names were duly recommended by the recruitment committee and formally approved by the competent authority, however, before issuance of appointment orders, the AIG Police directed re-examination of the entire recruitment process for 180 posts

Issue requiring determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the authorities could lawfully halt and re-open the recruitment process after completion, approval, and recommendation of the petitioners, and without issuing their appointment orders"?

Held: Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 imposed a mandatory obligation upon every executive and public authority to exercise their powers in a reasonable manner, ensuring fairness in decision making

It implied that administrative orders should be speaking, clearly outlining the reasons for the decision, demonstrating application of mind that aligned with the principles of justice and fairness

Admittedly the petitioners had successfully qualified the recruitment process and were duly recommended by the recruitment committee but despite meeting all the requirements no formal appointment letters were issued to them

Instead respondents issued impugned letters calling for a fresh test that too without disclosing any valid reasons that could justify the re-initiation of the entire recruitment process which was found to be arbitrary which could not be allowed to hold field, more particularly when an indefeasible and vested right had been created in favour of the petitioners

Impugned letters were declared null and void, having no legal effect and the respondents were directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners

Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Though the employer would be at liberty to conduct proper inquiry into the allegations against the employee.

Brief facts were that the petitioner was a 'lecturer' and was issued an explanation letter and a show-cause notice regarding residing outside the college premises despite alleged permission; he was dismissed from service and his departmental appeal remained undecided, whereupon he invoked constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

The issue before the High Court was "whether the dismissal order had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of fair hearing?"

Held: There was no denial of the fact that the explanation letter and show cause notice had been issued by the single person i.e. respondent No.4 and thereby he himself acted as complainant and a judge, without any inquiry into the allegations against petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of personal audience

Hence, without touching other merits of the case, the matter was sent back to the respondent No.4 to conduct a proper inquiry into the allegations against petitioner, if so desired, and then decide the case

In the meanwhile, the petitioner was reinstated into service and he was entitled to current salaries

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Briefly, petitioner's father was serving as a postal clerk in the postal services department and was invalidated and prematurely retired on medical grounds

Following his retirement, the petitioner applied for appointment under the quota reserved for children of employees who retired on medical grounds and was appointed as a postal clerk on a contract basis

Subsequently, the respondent-department cancelled the petitioner's appointment through the impugned order, prompting the petitioner to file a constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution seeking reinstatement

Held: In view of the Supreme Court's judgment, dated 18-10-2024 in Civil Petition No.3390 of 2021, all rules, policies, memorandums, etc., which provided for the appointment, without open advertisement, competition, and merit, of children and/or family members of employees who retired or died during service, were declared as discriminatory and ultra vires to Arts. 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution

In the present case, the petitioner had unequivocally admitted in the petition that he was appointed under the son's quota

However, at the time of his appointment on 01.11.2024, the said quota had already been declared unconstitutional and unlawful by both the High Court and the Supreme Court

Therefore, the petitioner's appointment was patently illegal, void ab initio, and coram non judice

Impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

The petition, being devoid of any merit, was dismissed in limine.

The alleged violations, if any, quo the terms and conditions of service, if not backed by statutory rules, cannot be redressed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Rules of an organization if not approved by government and having been drafted, approved or adopted for internal arrangement and functioning of such organization are non-statutory.

Mere adoption of statutory rules does not render the rules statutory for the purpose of organization which adopts such rules.

Briefly, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the Livestock and Dairy Development Department in 2010 pursuant to an advertisement

Their salaries were initially withheld but later released after verification of the recruitment process

Upon completion of the contract period, an inquiry into the appointments was conducted, which declared the recruitment unlawful, leading to non-extension of their contracts and discontinuation of services, though they were paid salaries for the period served

The petitioners thereafter filed multiple representations, writ petitions, appeals and related proceedings seeking regularization and reinstatement, all of which culminated in rejection of their claims and finally the impugned order was passed which was challenged through the present constitutional petition

Held: There was no vested right to seek extension in service

Further, when the contract appointments were not extended, there was no question for regularization of services of the petitioners

No remedy was available to the petitioners to file a fresh representation for reopening the matter which had attained finality after withdrawal of their appeal from the Supreme Court

Hence, the petitioners had no lawful right to reopen a closed and past transaction

Representation at first was not maintainable on which the impugned order was unlawfully passed

Constitutional petition being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

He was qualified on merit but during character verification it was discovered that he had not disclosed an earlier registered FIR against him in pursuance of which he was arrested but later got discharged

The legal issue before the High Court was as to "whether a candidate who had been exonerated in a previously registered FIR was still legally required to disclose that FIR in the application and affidavit, and whether non-disclosure of such antecedents justified refusal of appointment?"

Held: The affidavit was an instrument through which information could have been accurately and completely disclosed and explained

The non-disclosure of the same amounted to concealment rendering the candidate/petitioner unfit for recruitment

It was unequivocally established that the petitioner deliberately and willfully concealed the fact viz his FIR and arrest in the sworn affidavit

He could have conveniently disclosed the fact of registration of FIR and subsequent discharge by the magistrate

If he had disclosed this information accurately in his affidavit, he could have been considered for appointment against the applied post

However, the fact of registration of FIR was discovered by the police department upon scrutiny of antecedents which led the functionaries of the department to decline his appointment

Real issue was not regarding innocence or honorable exoneration of the petitioner or that if he did or did not hold criminal record, rather, it was regarding deliberate and willful concealment of material information solicited by the police department as prerequisite for taking part in the recruitment process

Such concealment was viewed as a conscious act on the part of the petitioner with the intention to effectively escape scrutiny regarding suitability to appointment

Act of refusal of the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner was in consonance with the terms of recruitment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

If the terms of recruitment seek provision of mandatory information and the same is withheld or falsely provided, the applicant may validly be disqualified for consideration in that recruitment process although he may have successfully sailed through the recruitment process.

When the punishment has already been awarded on the allegation while considering removal, on the basis of past and closed transaction, to it amounts to violation of Art. 13 of the 'Constitution' and is considered double punishment.

Professor retired from National Institute of Cardio-Vascular Diseases (NICVD) sought directions to the Respondents/NICVD to pay him all outstanding professional fees and arrears of satellite allowance, consistent with the relevant payment structure

Held: It appeared from the minutes of the Governing Body of NICVD for establishing the Satellite Centers of NICVD in Sindh with the understanding that NICVD would engage a senior doctor as Director Satellite centre and for operation management a Head of Project would also be engaged from NICVD

Respondents disputed the official position of the petitioner as Head of the Project, as such the High Court could not give declaration to the effect whether the petitioner was entitled for the satellite allowance

So far as PhD allowance was concerned, petitioner was getting the said allowance but not on enhanced rate in terms of relevant/ asserted Notification (dated 08.02.2018 ) for which the respondents disputed the entitlement of the petitioner which was permissible to all PhD faculty members of the public sector university, whereas the NICVD had not been declared as a teaching hospital

Therefore, the High Court could not direct the respondents to implement the Notification, if not earlier implemented in NICVD employees case

Since the petitioner had already retired in 2020 and rotation of posting of the office staff of Satellite Centre was undertaken by the petitioner, it did not mean that he was Head of Project to claim benefit of the minutes of the meeting

All said disputed facts needed thorough examination which was to be done by the court of plenary jurisdiction and not under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Besides, as per statement of the respondents, there was final settlement with regard to service benefits of the petitioner, as such the present case could not be stretched further

Constitutional petition, filed by former professor, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by authorities was that earlier Constitutional petition on the same subject by same petitioners had already been decided by High Court

Validity

Principle of res judicata is applicable to Constitutional petitions

Any issued raised in Constitutional petition that has already been decided cannot be contested again, whether it pertains to a question of law or fact

This holds true if the matter in question in subsequent Constitutional petition is identical to what was already addressed in a previous Constitutional petition

Party cannot be subjected to multiple legal proceedings in the same jurisdiction

This demonstrates universal applicability of principle of res judicate

Pela of nepotism and favourtism were not supported by any material available on record

There was no nexus between the allegations and rejection of petitioners in interview / viva voce

Petitioner failed to prove illegality, impropriety or mala fide on the part of interviewing panel / committee

High Court could not step into the functions of the Executive

Constitutional scheme is based on trichotomy of powers shared among the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary

Every organ has its distinct and separate role to play and to act as to check and balance on the others while operating within its own defined sphere of power

High Court declined to interfere in the recruitment process

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

The petitioner was serving as Assistant Director at the Rehabilitation Center for Physically Handicapped Children (RCPHC) since 05.08.2016

After the 18th Constitutional amendment, the Sindh Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2018 was enacted, under which rehabilitation centers and their related assets, codes, and human resources were to be transferred from the social welfare department to the newly established 'department for empowerment of persons with disabilities' (DEPD)

In 2020, a summary proposing transfer of various codes, including the petitioner's cost center SY450, to DEPD was approved

A transfer order listed two individuals from the petitioner's center as transferred, while the petitioner's name did not appear

The petitioner claimed administrative correspondence continued between officials regarding the implementation of the approved summary, and thereafter he filed the present constitutional petition seeking implementation of the summary and protection of his service position

Held: No writ was maintainable for the enforcement of administrative proposals, internal summaries, or inter-departmental communications that had not culminated in a final, notified decision

The Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under was limited to enforcement of vested legal rights and could not be invoked to compel the implementation of incomplete or discretionary administrative process

Mere movement or internal approval of a summary did not by itself confer any justiciable right capable of enforcement through constitutional remedies

Moreover, matters relating to the posting and transfer of government servants from one department to another fell within the exclusive domain of the executive and are governed by administrative policy and discretion

Unless such action was shown to be discriminatory, mala fide, or in violation of statutory rules, the same could not be made subject to judicial review

In the present case, the petitioner had not demonstrated any legal entitlement to be transferred, nor had he pointed to any rule or notification creating a vested right in his favour

The Court could not substitute its judgment for that of the competent authority in such matters, particularly when no final order or notification had been issued

Constitutional petition, being devoid of any enforceable legal right and involving disputed questions was not amenable to writ jurisdiction and same was not maintainable under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Accordingly, the petition stood dismissed.

Salary is not merely a form of compensation; it constitutes the very lifeline that sustains a household, feeds families, educates children, and preserves human dignity

Right to livelihood is inseparable from the right to dignity guaranteed under the Constitution

When the State fails to pay salary or remuneration for services rendered in good faith, it does not merely commit a breach of contract; it undermines the social contract itself, thus, it is the constitutional and moral duty of every public institution to ensure that no public servant is compelled to work without due payment, and that justice is not delayed where the bread and dignity of a citizen are at stake.

Appellant while working as daily wage driver was transferred from Local Government and Rural Development Department to the Office of the Advocate General, Islamabad and at his back his service was terminated by the parent department due to paucity of funds, however, he continued to work in the borrowing department, which only recognized his services and recommended for his appointment and payment of salaries for the period he worked

Appellant filed Constitutional petition for payment of his salaries, which was dismissed

Validity

Office of the Advocate General, being of Constitutional dignity and institutional sanctity, was expected to exemplify adherence to rule of law and fairness in administrative conduct

Those who occupy positions of Constitutional trust are duty-bound to act with heightened sense of accountability, compassion, and fidelity to the rights of those who serve under their command

To permit the State or its functionaries to derive benefit from the work of an individual without remuneration would amount to institutional exploitation, an act that both Islam and the Constitution unequivocally condemn

Such deprivation strikes at the root of the social justice framework envisaged by our Constitutional order and Islamic principles alike

High Court, as guardian of the Constitution and custodian of fundamental rights, could not remain indifferent to such injustice

Combined weight of Islamic social justice, constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality, and the conscience of law compelled that the appellant be paid his wages in full, together with appropriate compensation for the hardship endured as the appellant had suffered not because of any fault or negligence on his part, but due to administrative indifference and procedural lapses on the part of government functionaries

Appellant continued to serve in good faith under the direction of a Constitutional office, expecting that the State would honor its basic obligation of paying for work performed

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the moral, Constitutional, and legal principles, High Court held that the appellant was entitled to receive his unpaid salaries for the period he performed

Arrears were ordered to be calculated from the date they became due and were to be paid to him along with interest at the prevailing bank rate

Intra Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Constitution founded upon the principles of Islamic ideology, imposes an unequivocal duty upon the State to realize and safeguard the fundamental rights of its citizens, irrespective of gender, faith, or social standing, in order to promote social and economic justice

Denial of salary for work duly performed not only contravenes this constitutional command but, in effect, amounts to forced labour, which stands expressly prohibited under Art.11(3) of the Constitution and constitutes an offence against the moral and legal order of the Republic.

A probationer has no vested right of permanence in service and termination during probation if supported by valid reasons cannot be termed unlawful

Termination of a probationary employee by the competent authority does not warrant interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

After joining the post on probation it was revealed that petitioner/candidate failed to meet the prescribed criteria on the date of submission of his application

Eligibility

The petitioner applied for the post of Director Human Resource Management (HRM) in the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) by presenting his academic credentials, including an MBA in Information Technology Management (ITM) and a Ph.D. in Social and Economic Sciences, which he claimed to be in HRM

He was appointed to the post, however, upon later scrutiny, the PPRA found that his degrees did not correspond to the prescribed qualification of a Master's degree (16 years education) in HRM or an equivalent field, and that he had misrepresented his Ph.D. as being in HRM

Consequently, the managing director directed him to provide an HEC equivalence certificate validating his qualification, failing which his services were terminated

The core issue for determination was as to "whether the petitioner was eligible at the time of submitting his application for the advertised post"?

Held: The answer to question was clearly in negative as the petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, rather he maneuvered his credentials in a manner designed to misrepresent his eligibility and thereby enter public service through deceptive means, ultimately causing loss of confidence in the integrity of recruitment process

Once a public servant was found to have secured appointment by misrepresentation thereby betraying the public trust it would be wholly inappropriate to permit his continuation in service

Since the petitioner lacked the basic qualification for the post he could not in law or equity claim any right to continue in office

His appointment was vitiated from its very inception and being on probation, his services were rightly terminated by the competent authority in exercise of delegated powers

Termination of probationary employee did not warrant interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Petitioner being devoid of any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Could the trial court order for reinstatement in service or it could ordinarily entertain suit for damages merely as per the principle of master and servant?

Whether the basic principle of master and servant still fits in the present day and age or it requires re-evaluation?

The main legal issue concerned the long-standing principle that in master and servant (contractual employment) relationships, courts could not order reinstatement and instead only damages could be awarded

The petitioner bank relied on the precedent set in the case reported as 'PLD 1961 SC 531', however, the Supreme Court questioned as to whether this precedent being 65 years old remains relevant in the modern context and would continue to be fit for purpose?

For a number of reasons, this was a question which required consideration by the Supreme Court before granting leave to appeal

Given the modern age of internet and even in relation to what was called the "gig economy" (where the position of the hired/engaged person was at its most precious) the courts in many jurisdiction have held that the relationship could not be reduced to that of master and servant

Even the ancient concept as set out in traditionalist terms and certainly as appeared to be in the mind of the court in 'PLD 1961 SC 531' appeared to be outmoded

It appeared that the law might have ossified and became outmoded, being no longer congruent with the demands and requirements of modern times

Rule laid down in 'PLD 1961 SC 531' was ultimately of an equitable nature and it was of the essence of equity that it must retain flexibility and the discretion of the Court (in the judicial sense) so that the law could appropriately develop, and continue to develop, with the passage of time

The rule at hand had prima facie (barring a few developments, which do not however address the issue at the most fundamental level) now acquired a rigidity that was a negation of the discretion that was the hallmark of equity, and became little more than a self-denying ordinance that barred the healthy and organic development of the law so that it remained fit for purpose and the modern age

In the context of the modern economy, the termination of service, in particular by a large corporation, may well in practical terms make a person effectively unemployable even if the termination is later found to be unlawful by a court and compensated by an award of damages

In such circumstances, the decree, when (and if) ultimately honored, may well be cold comfort only

Supreme Court emphasized that it was now long overdue that matters be reappraised at a fundamental level and even, perhaps on the basis of recourse to first principles

Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to, inter alia, consider the question as to "Whether the rule laid down by this Court in the case reported as PLD 1961 SC 531, and others that follow and/or lay down or affirm the same or similar principle are, and continue to be, fit for purpose or require any modification, replacement or substitution and if so, in what manner and to what extent?

Respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk, under Prime Minister's Assistance Package for the Families of Deceased Government Employees but later on her services were terminated on the ground of her remarriage

High Court reinstated the respondent in service

Validity

Constitution secures fundamental rights for individuals as equal citizens not as appendages of patriarchal roles or marital identities

Women are not defined by the men in their lives; they are autonomous and rights-bearing individuals

Denying a woman right to employment on the basis of her remarriage is a blatant reinforcement of patriarchal control, seeking to subordinate her legal identity to societal expectations

Financial independence is not a concession to women, it is the foundation of their Constitutional agency, dignity, and full participation in public life

Law must dismantle, not perpetuate, the structures that reduce women to secondary citizens in the eyes of society

Impugned office order was discriminatory as it singled out widows, the female spouses of deceased government employees for disqualification from compassionate employment upon remarriage, without imposing a corresponding restriction on widowers, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's Assistance Package which offered compassionate employment to both a widow and a widower

Gender-specific disqualification amounts to direct discrimination based on sex, contravening Articles 25(1) and 25(2) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, whereby respondent was reinstated in service

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioner/National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was aggrieved of direction passed by High Court to regularize services of respondent/employee

Validity

Petitioner/NADRA provided job opportunities to disabled persons based on their ability and capacity to work

If a disabled person, initially appointed on a contractual basis, had performed his duties for a considerable period of time to the satisfaction of his superiors/department, then proprietary demanded that he should be regularized as a permanent employee so that he could reap all employment benefits, rather than being dragged on contractual basis perpetually

Respondent/employee was only three days short of completing required one year of service, but was denied regularization, while other similarly situated employees, who were short by a greater margin than the respondent/employee were accommodated as directed by High Court without any challenge to that judgment

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Appointments in the public sector based on corruption, nepotism, favoritism, lack of due process, and misuse of authority have long been a significant issue in our society

These practices undermine the principles of fairness and equality, eroding public trust in governmental institutions

When positions are filled not on merit but through personal connections or corrupt practices, it not only deprives deserving candidates of opportunities but also weakens the overall efficiency and integrity of the public sector

Upholding the values of transparency, merit, and open competition in public sector employment is essential for fostering a system where the most qualified individuals serve, ensuring that public resources are utilized effectively and justly for the benefit of all

Without adherence to these principles, the public sector risks becoming a tool for the powerful rather than a service for the people, perpetuating cycles of inequality and inefficiency

Therefore, it is imperative that the recruitment and promotion processes in the public sector be conducted with the highest standards of fairness and accountability, free from any undue influence or bias.

The doctrine of quantum meruit, literally meaning "as much as he has earned" or "as much as he deserves" and is a foundational principle of equity and restitution in both common law and civil law jurisdictions

Said principle enables a party to claim reasonable compensation for services rendered or work performed, even where a contract is void, unenforceable, or otherwise defective

The doctrine rests not merely on contractual notions, but on the broader equitable premise that a person who has received and retained a benefit should not be allowed to do so without paying reasonable compensation, particularly where the services were not intended to be gratuitous; which creates an implied obligation in law, akin to a quasi-contract, compelling restitution where unjust enrichment would otherwise result.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

In the present case, the doctrine of quantum meruit finds clear and compelling application

This equitable principle permits reasonable compensation for services rendered where one party has knowingly accepted and benefited from the work of another, even in the absence of a valid or enforceable contract

For over fifteen years, the petitioner continuously performed duties that fulfilled institutional needs and was compensated accordingly

To retrospectively invalidate such remuneration despite the employer's full knowledge and acceptance of the services rendered would be contrary to the fundamental tenet that no person should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of another

In the present case, it was the employer/ Department that stood to benefit unjustly

Said principle finds statutory recognition under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872

Therefore, even where an employment / appointment is found to be irregular, if the employee has continuously and faithfully discharged official functions and the employer has enjoyed the resulting benefit over a significant period, the doctrine of quantum meruit furnishes both a moral and legal basis to preclude retrospective recovery of salary

Labors that is not donated but knowingly accepted must be compensated regardless of technical infirmities in the appointment process

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Could the trial court order for reinstatement in service or it could ordinarily entertain suit for damages merely as per the principle of master and servant?

Whether the basic principle of master and servant still fits in the present day and age or it requires re-evaluation?

The main legal issue concerned the long-standing principle that in master and servant (contractual employment) relationships, courts could not order reinstatement and instead only damages could be awarded

The petitioner bank relied on the precedent set in the case reported as 'PLD 1961 SC 531', however, the Supreme Court questioned as to whether this precedent being 65 years old remains relevant in the modern context and would continue to be fit for purpose?

For a number of reasons, this was a question which required consideration by the Supreme Court before granting leave to appeal

Given the modern age of internet and even in relation to what was called the "gig economy" (where the position of the hired/engaged person was at its most precious) the courts in many jurisdiction have held that the relationship could not be reduced to that of master and servant

Even the ancient concept as set out in traditionalist terms and certainly as appeared to be in the mind of the court in 'PLD 1961 SC 531' appeared to be outmoded

It appeared that the law might have ossified and became outmoded, being no longer congruent with the demands and requirements of modern times

Rule laid down in 'PLD 1961 SC 531' was ultimately of an equitable nature and it was of the essence of equity that it must retain flexibility and the discretion of the Court (in the judicial sense) so that the law could appropriately develop, and continue to develop, with the passage of time

The rule at hand had prima facie (barring a few developments, which do not however address the issue at the most fundamental level) now acquired a rigidity that was a negation of the discretion that was the hallmark of equity, and became little more than a self-denying ordinance that barred the healthy and organic development of the law so that it remained fit for purpose and the modern age

In the context of the modern economy, the termination of service, in particular by a large corporation, may well in practical terms make a person effectively unemployable even if the termination is later found to be unlawful by a court and compensated by an award of damages

In such circumstances, the decree, when (and if) ultimately honored, may well be cold comfort only

Supreme Court emphasized that it was now long overdue that matters be reappraised at a fundamental level and even, perhaps on the basis of recourse to first principles

Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to, inter alia, consider the question as to "Whether the rule laid down by this Court in the case reported as PLD 1961 SC 531, and others that follow and/or lay down or affirm the same or similar principle are, and continue to be, fit for purpose or require any modification, replacement or substitution and if so, in what manner and to what extent?

The doctrine of quantum meruit, literally meaning "as much as he has earned" or "as much as he deserves" and is a foundational principle of equity and restitution in both common law and civil law jurisdictions

Said principle enables a party to claim reasonable compensation for services rendered or work performed, even where a contract is void, unenforceable, or otherwise defective

The doctrine rests not merely on contractual notions, but on the broader equitable premise that a person who has received and retained a benefit should not be allowed to do so without paying reasonable compensation, particularly where the services were not intended to be gratuitous; which creates an implied obligation in law, akin to a quasi-contract, compelling restitution where unjust enrichment would otherwise result.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

In the present case, the doctrine of quantum meruit finds clear and compelling application

This equitable principle permits reasonable compensation for services rendered where one party has knowingly accepted and benefited from the work of another, even in the absence of a valid or enforceable contract

For over fifteen years, the petitioner continuously performed duties that fulfilled institutional needs and was compensated accordingly

To retrospectively invalidate such remuneration despite the employer's full knowledge and acceptance of the services rendered would be contrary to the fundamental tenet that no person should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of another

In the present case, it was the employer/ Department that stood to benefit unjustly

Said principle finds statutory recognition under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872

Therefore, even where an employment / appointment is found to be irregular, if the employee has continuously and faithfully discharged official functions and the employer has enjoyed the resulting benefit over a significant period, the doctrine of quantum meruit furnishes both a moral and legal basis to preclude retrospective recovery of salary

Labours that is not donated but knowingly accepted must be compensated regardless of technical infirmities in the appointment process

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk, under Prime Minister's Assistance Package for the Families of Deceased Government Employees but later on her services were terminated on the ground of her remarriage

High Court reinstated the respondent in service

Validity

Constitution secures fundamental rights for individuals as equal citizens not as appendages of patriarchal roles or marital identities

Women are not defined by the men in their lives; they are autonomous and rights-bearing individuals

Denying a woman right to employment on the basis of her remarriage is a blatant reinforcement of patriarchal control, seeking to subordinate her legal identity to societal expectations

Financial independence is not a concession to women, it is the foundation of their Constitutional agency, dignity, and full participation in public life

Law must dismantle, not perpetuate, the structures that reduce women to secondary citizens in the eyes of society

Impugned office order was discriminatory as it singled out widows, the female spouses of deceased government employees for disqualification from compassionate employment upon remarriage, without imposing a corresponding restriction on widowers, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's Assistance Package which offered compassionate employment to both a widow and a widower

Gender-specific disqualification amounts to direct discrimination based on sex, contravening Articles 25(1) and 25(2) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, whereby respondent was reinstated in service

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioner/National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was aggrieved of direction passed by High Court to regularize services of respondent/employee

Validity

Petitioner/NADRA provided job opportunities to disabled persons based on their ability and capacity to work

If a disabled person, initially appointed on a contractual basis, had performed his duties for a considerable period of time to the satisfaction of his superiors/department, then proprietary demanded that he should be regularized as a permanent employee so that he could reap all employment benefits, rather than being dragged on contractual basis perpetually

Respondent/employee was only three days short of completing required one year of service, but was denied regularization, while other similarly situated employees, who were short by a greater margin than the respondent/employee were accommodated as directed by High Court without any challenge to that judgment

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Appointments in the public sector based on corruption, nepotism, favoritism, lack of due process, and misuse of authority have long been a significant issue in our society

These practices undermine the principles of fairness and equality, eroding public trust in governmental institutions

When positions are filled not on merit but through personal connections or corrupt practices, it not only deprives deserving candidates of opportunities but also weakens the overall efficiency and integrity of the public sector

Upholding the values of transparency, merit, and open competition in public sector employment is essential for fostering a system where the most qualified individuals serve, ensuring that public resources are utilized effectively and justly for the benefit of all

Without adherence to these principles, the public sector risks becoming a tool for the powerful rather than a service for the people, perpetuating cycles of inequality and inefficiency

Therefore, it is imperative that the recruitment and promotion processes in the public sector be conducted with the highest standards of fairness and accountability, free from any undue influence or bias.