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

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

He said that 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. 

The judge said that it is not true that 16,000 employees were removed through an order but some of these employees were removed on end 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 Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of the Constitution and the Civil Servants Act 1973. The bench hinted to conclude the case in 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 the semi-government departments were rendered jobless. 

Apex court hears review petitions of govt, sacked employees against judgment to declare Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of Constitution and Civil Servants Act 1973

Aitzaz Ahsan, representing sacked employees of Intelligence Bureau (IB), argued that his clients were appointed after they passed test and interview, but they were removed by an interim government in December 1996. Replying to the bench query, he said that Supreme Court on 29-11-2000 had upheld the termination of his clients. 

Justice Qazi Mohammad Amin asked from counsel that he was interior minister and incharge of IB when the people were inducted in the Bureau. He questioned whether these employees were recruited following the procedure. Aitzaz Ahsan told that the people in IB were employed through test and interview. 

Justice Mansoor questioned that 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 that instead of reinstating those employees there should have been fresh appointments. 

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

Justice Mansoor inquired from the counsel that 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. He added that 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 mala fide to the Parliament. He said that the legislature wisdom cannot be questioned and if the legislature is treated in such manner then it will become laughing stock. 

Justice Mansoor said that if laws are passed against the Fundamental Right then the apex court has power to examine them.