Following a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, uncertainty looms over the future of hundreds of employees in different federal government bodies or autonomous and semi-autonomous organisations who were reinstated over a decade ago during the then government of Pakistan Peoples Party.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Mushir Alam has on August 17 declared as unconstitutional the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, which was enacted for reinstating the employees who were appointed from Nov 1, 1993, till Nov 30, 1996, and were sacked by then government from Nov 1, 1996, till Oct 12, 1999.

The bench had reserved its judgment on Dec 16, 2019, and pronounced the verdict after a period of around 20 months.

The 42-page judgment provides that any benefit accrued to the beneficiaries of this law has been ceased with immediate effect. With the implementation of this verdict, reinstated employees in a large number, falling in the said category, are likely to be removed.

The bench heard scores of appeals originating from different judgments of the high courts, including the Peshawar High Court, related to the said law.

These appeals pertained to different government departments and organisations, including the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Commissioner Afghan Refugees, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, National Highway Authority, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd, Overseas Pakistani Foundation, Islamabad, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Civil Aviation Authority, Water and Power Development Authority, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd, Education Department and Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd, Karachi.

The appellants included different groups of people like those whose seniority was affected due to reinstatement and promotion of sacked employees, those aggrieved persons who had not been extended benefit of the said law, etc.

While the bench declared that the cases of employees who had retired or passed away were past and closed transaction and, therefore, the court did not find it appropriate to interfere in their cases as it would be an exercise in futility, it issued order about those reinstated sacked employees still serving.

About those who have still been serving, the bench ruled: “Whereas, the beneficiaries of the Act of 2010, who are still in service, will go back to their previous positions, i.e. to the date when the operation of the Act of 2010 has taken effect.”

The bench ruled that it would be inequitable to reverse any monetary benefits received by them under the Act of 2010 for the period they have served and those shall remain intact as they were granted against service.

However, what is worrisome for the reinstated employees is that the bench has ruled that the lump sum received by such ‘sacked employees’ upon reinstatement should be reversed.

One of the reinstated employees told Dawn that while the bench had not mentioned in clear terms that they should be sacked or removed, once the law under which they had been reinstated was declared unconstitutional that would result in their removal from existing posts.

He said that they had now been in a fix what legal option to avail as in most of their cases they were not a party before the SC and under the rules they could not file a review petition.

“Even if we file a constitutional petition before the apex court it will take several years to decide, just like the present cases were decided in around seven-eight years, and by that time most of us would attain the age of retirement,” he said.

Another of the employees said they had served now for around 11 years and if they were sacked where they would go.

“I am 52 now. Who is going to give me employment,” he said, apprehending soon he and his family would be passing through miserable times. Same would be the fate of around 12,000 other families to be affected, he said.

Soon after the judgment was released, one of the federal departments ordered that the salary disbursement of all the reinstated employees in the department was discontinued with effect from Aug 17. The department has now been working out modalities for implementation of the judgment.

The issue had started when in 2009 the President of Pakistan had promulgated the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance 2009 for providing relief to those persons who were appointed in corporation service or autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies or in government service during the period from Nov 1, 1993, to Nov 30, 1996, and were dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from Nov 1, 1996, to Dec 31, 1998. Later, the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, was enacted in Dec 2010 wherein the period of dismissal was extended to Oct 12, 1999.

The law provided that a sacked employee appointed on permanent or contract basis or regular or ad hoc basis in any corporation or government service against a regular or temporary post during the prescribed period shall be reinstated and regularised in regular service of the employer on one scale higher to his substantive scale, grade, cadre, post or designation held by him at the time of his dismissal, removal or termination from service or at the time of forced golden handshake was given to sacked employees.

Similarly, the law also included provisions related to sacked employees who were appointed on contract basis against a regular or temporary post and dismissed, removed or terminated from service before or expiry of the contract period.

The bench in its detailed judgment ruled: “The Act has extended undue advantage to a certain class of citizens thereby violating the fundamental rights under Article 4, 9, and 25 of the employees in the Service of Pakistan and being void under Article 8 of the Constitution.”

It further ruled: “This is particularly troubling as each of the ‘sacked employees’ had appropriate remedies available under Article 212 read with the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, before the appropriate Service Tribunal. Given that the employees did not elect for such a remedy upon termination of services, they have foregone their right to be reinstated.”

A legal expert dealing with service matters said that those reinstated employees to be affected with this verdict should file review petitions before the court, even if they were not party to the decided appeals and petitions. He believed that they should adopt the plea that they were necessary party to these cases and would be condemned unheard when the judgment would be implemented.

Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2021