Review petitions of sacked employees: Why govt has come up with a relief proposal, asks SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court questioned why the government itself came up with a proposal for the relief of sacked employees, who have served the government and semi-autonomous bodies for 12 years.

A five-judge larger bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, on Monday, heard the review petitions of the federal government and the sacked employees against its judgment.

Justice Mushir Alam, before his retirement (August 17, 2021), delivered the judgment declaring Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, ultra vires and said the effect of such a declaration is that any/ all the benefits accrued to be beneficiaries are to be ceased with immediate effect. “The beneficiaries of the Act, 2010, who are still in service, will go back to their previous positions, i.e., to date when the operation of the Act 2010 has taken effect,” the judgment further said.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said the court has sympathy with the employees who are on the roads because of its judgment and are aware that it is not their fault that they have been sacked, adding the apex court has to examine only the constitutional and the legal aspect of the case. He asked the Attorney General for Pakistan, Khalid Jawed Khan, that the government itself has realised that law passed by the Parliament was unconstitutional, but now it wanted to give the employees relief because of length of service, i.e., 12 years and the age factor.

He said the government through parliament can do something for the benefit of the sacked employees, who have worked in the government sector for 12 years. The attorney general replied that the government through him is defending the employees. He said the Supreme Court, in the case of the appointments in the FIA, which were made on political basis, had devised a mechanism for their relief.

The AGP said those who were appointed in 1996 are now over 50 years old. The attorney general informed that employees inducted between 1993 and 1996 were removed through an Establishment Division’s letter dated 7 November 1997. He said that 16,000 employees of 16 institutions were affected.

Justice Mansoor said there is nothing before the Court, which shows that the employees had challenged the letter. He questioned how many employees were affected with the apex court’s judgment. The attorney general said that it is said 16,000 but according to the Establishment Division, 5,000 are affected with the impugned judgment.

The bench noted that the law was discriminatory as the relief was provided to workers who were appointed in a specific period, but were removed by the successive governments after 1997.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah said there are many petitioners, whose services were terminated due to corruption, theft, absence from duty, and misconduct. He said many employees have challenged their removal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. He said there is no precedent that the apex court has set aside its own judgment.

Justice Qazi Muhammad Ameen, who seemed not happy with the suggestions given to the government for relief of sacked employees, said while hearing the review petitions, why we (judges) are giving recommendations.

During the proceeding, the attorney general said that the bench, while hearing the case, said the present government is run on ordinance. He added that most of the ordinances were issued by the government, which had passed the impugned law (Act 2010).

He said that the maximum life of an ordinance is 240 days. He said that the ordinance was issued for the extension of the NAB chairman’s tenure, adding, keeping the chairman on the post through an ordinance is against constitutional provisions.

Justice Bandial questioned how many workers have been getting pensions whose cases are deemed past and closed transactions. The attorney general was asked to submit a report about the people who are getting pension in violation of the judgment, and who could get benefit, though they were reinstated in light of the law, which was unconstitutional. The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021