ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Wednesday submitted its proposal to the Supreme Court on the reinstatement of employees who were sacked through its Aug 17 verdict that struck down the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act, 2010, rendering thousands of workers jobless.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan submitted the proposals before the larger bench hearing review petitions against the SC judgment.
The court noted that it would examine the proposals and present its opinion on the matter on Thursday (today).
A five-judge larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, was hearing the review petitions filed against its verdict, which had declared as illegal and unconstitutional a PPP-era law called the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act, 2010, (SERA) under which a number of people were employed or promoted in 1989-90. The verdict had rendered around 16,000 government employees jobless.
The proposals included that employees who had received their pension as soon as they were reinstated would no longer be eligible for it.
It further proposed that the amount paid to the employees would not be recovered. The AGP informed the court that the sacked employees belonged to 38 different federal agencies.
“Of those fired, 3,789 were not even called civil servants,” he added.
Justice Sajjad Ali Shah noted that the bench would consider the suggestions of the government.
“It will be seen the court verdict is not be affected by the proposals,” he added. Justice Bandial noted that the court would consider the proposals and give its opinion on Thursday (today)
The AGP replied that employees were worried and the court should at least decide the matter of workers from grades 1 to 7 today. Justice Qazi Amin told him not to hurry and let the court review the proposals.
The proposals include employees from BS-1 to BS-7 or equivalent may be allowed to continue their services in the light of the SC judgement in the case of “Muhammad Akram vs Registrar, Islamabad High Court and Dr Naveeda Tufail and others vs Government of Punjab and others”.
For the employees from BS-8 to BS-17 or above, the government suggested that these workers would have to undergo “appropriate process/test to be conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for the purpose of determining as to whether they are fit to hold the post to which they were appointed. This exercise may be completed within three months.
‘Their past service will be treated as ad hoc and would not count for the purpose of seniority which would be based on the date of regular appointment after recommendation of the FPSC”.
For the cases of employees who had retired from their service or passed away, the government suggested that they might be may treated as past and closed transaction.
“However, it shall not entitle them to pension, as they were never regularised constitutionally.”
The government further proposed that any employee affected by the judgment and who had filed cases earlier which were disposed of solely on the basis of the Ordinances or the Act, 2010, were free to approach the respective courts.
“The Courts may decide the cases in accordance with law. However, they will not be non-suited on account of laches alone.”
During the hearing, Justice Bandial observed that there should be transparency in government measures.
The lawyer representing the sacked employees of PSO said the court could provide protection to the workers even after declaring the law null and void.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired as to how parliament could reinstate employees sacked for committing corruption.
“The employees fired for corruption were not protected in the Act,” he added.
Justice Qazi Amin noted that the court had not ordered the sacking of any employee and only declared the law null and void following the principles of the past.
Justice Shah remarked that legislation is carried out through parliament in a democracy.
“Parliament is supreme while the scope of ordinance is limited. An ordinance can only be issued in case of urgent need. With the exception of the martial law era, every ordinance is followed by an act of parliament.”
He further noted that employees reinstated under the ordinance were not protected under the Act.
“How can those who were reinstated in 2009 still survive under the ordinance?”
Justice Bandial observed that the government could only make provisional legislation through an ordinance.
“Legislation is the prerogative of parliament under the Constitution.”
