ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that it is trite law that Supreme Court judgments apply prospectively, not retrospectively.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah declared it in a ruling on an appeal of the Sindh government against the decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC). The bench dismissed the Sindh province appeal regarding the appointment on deceased son/ spouse quota.
The SHC had accepted the respondents’ (spouse/ children of the deceased Sindh civil servants) plea and directed the Sindh government to appoint them on the deceased son/ spouse quota. The respondents had sought appointments on the basis of Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 (the Rules).
Additional Advocate General, Sindh, argued before the FCC that in light of the Supreme Court judgment reported as General Post Office, Islamabad and others Vs. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276), Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 was struck down, hence no appointment can be made on that basis. It was further argued that the right in favour of respondents has not culminated in as much as the appointment letters had not been issued.
The Sindh government, seeking the benefit of the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s judgment in the General Post Office case, which struck down Rule 11-A, contended that since the Rule is no longer in the field, no appointment can be made.
The Court noted that when the SC judgment was handed down at that relevant time, the right had accrued in favour of the respondents. As and when the death of a civil servant took place, one of the children and/ or spouse acquired the right to be appointed in the civil service.
The judgment said that the process of application and/ or a formal appointment letter are administrative act. Since a right had accrued in favour of private respondents, the judgment of the Supreme Court does not come in their way for appointment on the deceased employee’s children/ spouse quota.
Justice Aamer, who authored the judgment, wrote that it is trite law that judgments of the Supreme Court operate prospectively and not retrospectively. He stated that the Supreme Court, in a subsequent decision (Zahida Parveen Vs. KPK government), clarified that the judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276 does not take away the accrued rights and/ or set aside the past and closed transactions.
The FCC ruled that in view of the position of law, “we do not find any legal infirmity in the reasoning handed down by the Sindh High Court, in the impugned judgment, warranting interference.” Thus, the Sindh government’s appeal was dismissed.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026