FCC says contractual appointment cannot be equated with regular one

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) held that a contractual appointment cannot be equated with a regular appointment, and the period of service rendered on a contractual basis cannot be treated as regular service in the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect.

A two-member bench of the FCC comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha set aside the Sindh High Court (SHC) judgment.

READ ALSO: Article 199: FCC rules contractual appointment not challengeable

It said that an employee prior to regularisation remains outside the regular cadre and does not acquire any substantive right in the service, including any vested right relating to seniority.

The appellants, employees of Sindh Employees’ Social Security Institution (SESSI) had challenged the regularisation and promotion of private respondent, who was inducted in SESSI on contract basis for two years on 05-09-2002, which was subsequently extended from time to time. However, his services were regularised on 31-03-2007.

In 2013, after a lapse of about six years, the private respondent made a representation to the Chairman, Governing SESSI, seeking retrospective regularisation and seniority with effect from 05.09.2002; i.e., the date of his initial appointment on a contract. Later, he filed a Constitution Petition before the High Court, which on 06.05.2016 directed the SESSI Governing Body to decide the representation of the private respondent within two months.

On the recommendation of the said committee, constituted by SESSI Governing Body his services were regularised with effect from 05-09-2002, and he was also placed senior to all the appellants. Subsequently, the private respondent was posted as Director (BS-18) at the Defence/ Clifton Directorate, Karachi, vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2017.

The appellants and the proforma respondents, being aggrieved, filed a Constitution Petition before the High Court; however, the same was dismissed through the impugned judgment; hence, the appeal, before the FCC.

The appellants’ counsel argued before the FCC that the appointment of the private respondent on a contractual basis, as well as, the subsequent regularisation of his services, was wholly illegal. The private respondent was already serving as a BS-12 employee in the Services, General Administration and Coordination Department (SGA&CD) of the Government of Sindh, yet he was appointed on a contract basis in BS-16 in the SESSI, without advertisement of the post. Therefore, such an appointment could, at best, be treated as a deputation, rendering the private respondent liable to repatriation to his parent department.

He submitted that under Regulation 9 (3) of the Regulations of 2006, the seniority of a member of the service is to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment. Therefore, the appellants, who were appointed on a regular basis in 2004, while the service of private respondent regularised in 2007, were senior in service to the private respondent.

Addition Advocate General, Sindh submitted that the private respondent had continuously served against a permanent post from the date of his initial contractual appointment and had fulfilled all codal formalities required for regular appointment. Thus, the Governing Body of the SESSI was fully competent to regularise his services retrospectively from the date of his initial appointment.

The FCC judgment stated that seniority is ordinarily to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not from the date of initial contractual, ad-hoc, or officiating appointment, unless the governing law expressly provides otherwise. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 01.03.2017 and 17.03.2017 are hereby set aside;

It observed that the appellants were appointed in the SESSI on a regular basis during the period when the private respondent, namely Nadir Hussain Kanasro, was still serving on a contract and, therefore, the appellants were lawfully entitled to rank senior to the private respondent in the seniority list.

The FCC directed the SESSI to issue a revised seniority list of the parties within sixty days from the date of this judgment, strictly in accordance with its declarations.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026