Why only employees appointed between 1993 and 1996 were reinstated, asks SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, on Monday, questioned why only those employees were reinstated through an Act of Parliament, who were appointed during 1993–1996 but were later on sacked by successive governments.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a member of the five-judge larger bench, questioned why the benefit was extended only to the employees appointed during 1993–1996, not to other employees. Where will the Article 25 of the Constitution go, he further asked.

He said the Parliament cannot undo a judgment of the Supreme Court, but its effect can be nullified. The transaction that has been decided by the apex court cannot be reopened.

He said it is not true that 16,000 employees were removed through an order, but some of these employees were removed on expiration of their contract, while many were wrongly inducted.

The bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the review petitions of the federal government and the sacked employees against its judgment to declare the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of the Constitution and the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

The bench hinted at concluding the case this week. Justice Mushir Alam, before his retirement (August 17, 2021), delivered the judgment declaring the Act ultra vires. Due to that over 16,000 employees of various government and semi-government departments were rendered jobless.

Aitzaz Ahsan, representing sacked employees of Intelligence Bureau (IB), argued that his clients were appointed after they passed the test and interview, but they were removed by an interim government in December 1996. Replying to the bench query, he said the Supreme Court on 29 November 2000 had upheld the termination of his clients.

Justice Qazi Mohammad Amin asked counsel that he was interior minister and incharge of the IB when the people were inducted in the bureau. He questioned whether these employees were recruited following the procedure. Aitzaz Ahsan said that the people in the IB were employed through tests and interviews.

Justice Mansoor questioned why only those IB employees were picked up, who were removed by the interim government and that decision was upheld by the Court. Justice Bandial remarked instead of reinstating those employees there should have been fresh appointments.

Advocate Waseem Sajjad, appearing on behalf of the SNGPL sacked employees, argued that his clients were inducted in the gas company through a walk-in interview. He said they remained in the job for 11 years till the expiration of their contracts.

Justice Mansoor inquired from the counsel what is special in his clients that they were reinstated through the legislation. Waseem Sajjad argued that there is no bar on the parliament to give relief to the people. He contended that his clients were reinstated under an Ordinance enacted in December 2009 and not the Act 2010, adding the apex court has void only the Act and not the Ordinance.

Advocate Iftikhar Gilani, representing government schools’ teachers, argued that the Supreme Court cannot give direction to the Parliament which law to pass. It also cannot attribute malafide to the Parliament. He further said the legislature’s wisdom cannot be questioned, adding if the legislature is treated in such a manner then it will become a laughing stock.

Justice Mansoor said if the laws are passed against the Fundamental Right then the apex court has power to examine them. During the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) tenure 1993–1996 sacked workers were employed in various government institutions and departments, but they were removed by the successive governments. However, these employees were reinstated during the PPP government in 2010 under Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021