KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has ruled that the Pakistan International Airlines is at liberty to remove or retire from services any of its employees on the ground of misconduct, insolvency and inefficiency under the regulations and policy decisions.

A two-judge bench headed by Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar said that no interference could be needed in this regard until it had shown to be deviated from the fundamental rights of the employees of PIA.

The bench made such observations while dismissing a petition of a former official of PIA challenging his forced retirement.

A former deputy general manager of PIA’s human resources department assailed his early/premature retirement from the employment in 2006 and also challenged the appellate order passed in 2007 by the respondent rejecting his departmental appeal for such compulsory retirement from service on the ground of downsizing policy.

Court says it cannot interfere in a policy decision until it violates fundamental rights of PIA employees

The bench noted that the PIA was a statutory body established under the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act 1956, now converted into a company vide Pakistan International Airline Corporation (conversion) Act, 2016.

Though PIA has no statutory rules of service, but is an organisation being controlled by the federal government, having a majority stake, and its managing director and other members of the board of PIA are appointed by the federal government, thus is performing the functions in line with the federal government’s command and exercising public power by creating public employment, it added.

The bench in its order stated that primarily, an employee crossed certain age specified in the service rules and whose service was found to be not satisfactory may be required to be retired compulsorily before attaining the age of superannuation and such powers had been recognised and protected in the public interest.

“Prima facie the reason assigned by the PIA to retire the petitioner, on the premise to rationalise, reorganise and achieve optimal of the corporation now company,” it added.

“In our considered view, the expression in the context of early/premature retirement has a well-settled meaning. It refers to cases where the interests of public administration require the retirement of a public servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency, competence and utility called for by the Government service to which he belongs; that no stigma or implication of misbehavior is intended, and punishment is not the objective,” the order said.

“It also appears to us to be beyond dispute that the balance between the rights of the individual public servant and the interests of the public,” it added.

The bench further observed that while a minimum service was guaranteed to the public/government servant, the government was given the power to reenergise machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in the public interest.

In the present case, the bench said that primarily, the petitioner had been dealt with under the garb of a policy decision as certain officers of different groups of PIA were sent packing through the said decision and “interference at this juncture is not called for when the petitioner received all his service benefits and besides that much water has already flown under the bridge since 2007”.

“In the light of the above, we are of the candid view that the competent authority of PIAC is at liberty to remove any of its employees, from service, or may require him to retire from it on the ground of misconduct, insolvency, or inefficiency under the regulations 1985 as amended up-to-date and/or under the policy decision which could not be interfered until and unless it is shown to have deviated from the fundamental rights of the petitioner/employees of PIAC,” it concluded.

Published in Dawn, April 5th, 2022