PESHAWAR, Nov 24: The fate of the reinstated employees, who were sacked on charges of corruption, hangs in the balance as Peshawar High Court has taken suo motu notice of certain provisions of the law through which they have been restored.

“The law fails to differentiate between the employees, who were sacked on political grounds, and those, who were expelled from service on charges of corruption,” the court observed.

Hundreds of employees, who were sacked on political grounds and charges of corruption, were reinstated after parliament enacted a law for their restoration.A PHC bench comprising Chief Justice Dost Mohammad Khan and Justice Miftauddin Khan on Thursday put on notice the attorney general for Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general directing them to appear on next hearing the date for which would be fixed later on.

The chief justice questioned how parliament could provide protection to government servants sacked on corruption charges.

The chief justice took notice of the issue while hearing a writ petition field by a sacked employee of State Life Insurance Corporation, Maazullah Khan. The petitioner has requested the court to reinstate him in accordance with the provisions of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010.

The said law provides relief to persons, who were appointed in a corporation service or autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies or in government service during the period from Nov 1, 1993 to the Nov 30, 1996, the previous term of PPP government, and were dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from Nov 1, 1996, to Oct 12, 1999.

Advocate Khalid Rehman appeared for the petitioner and contended that his client was appointed as area manager in State Life Insurance Corporation in 1995. He added that later on the petitioner was sacked by the corporation in 1998 on charges of inefficiency and not achieving the prescribed targets.

Mr Rehman informed the bench that the petitioner had moved the Federal Services Tribunal, which had dismissed his plea and the said judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court.

He added that the said Act was enacted by the parliament in 2010, which provided that certain categories of the sacked employees should approach the review board concerned within 90 days of the enactment of the law and the board should decide the same within 90 days.

The counsel said that as the case of the petitioner fell in the same timeframe, therefore, he had approached the review board, but so far the board had not decided his case.The chief justice observed that apparently the provisions of the law were in conflict with the scheme of the constitution. The bench inquired how could an employee be reinstated when he was sacked on corruption charges and his case was dismissed by the Federal Services Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

The counsel stated that the case of the petitioners was not that of corruption and he was expelled on charges of inefficiency.

In a way, the bench observed the parliament had provided protection to persons sacked on charges of corruption and corrupt practices. It was observed that provisions of the law were kept vague and its benefit would go to employees sacked on corruption charges.

In the case of the present petitioner the bench sought comments within 20 days from the chairman of SLIC and its regional head.