| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1313 2026 SLD 1313 = 2026 SCP 7 = 2026 SCMR 42 = 2026 PLC 247 |
Civil Petition No. 1242-K of 2024 (against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in C.P. No. D-6249/2022)
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbas
Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Kalwar, ASC Mr. Khaleeq Ahmad, DAG Mr. Shah Hussain, A.AG Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, ASC Mr. K.A. Wahab, AOR
Ayaz Ali and another …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan and others …Respondent(s)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 25,27
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: XXVII-A
Tagline : (1) Employment opportunity for sons/daughters of in-service deceased and retired employees in NBP (2) The beneficial employment / recruitment policy should have been implemented equitably across the board and not through cherry-picking (3) Judgment of this Court in the case of “Muhammad Jalal” will apply prospectively.
Summary
The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed a civil petition against the Sindh High Court's dismissal of petitions by sons of deceased NBP officers, Ayaz Ali and Asadullah, who applied for jobs under the bank's 2011 policy (amended up to 2016). Their applications, filed promptly after their fathers' deaths in 2019 and 2021, remained pending without decision. The Court ruled that the 2024 judgment in General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) applies prospectively, not retrospectively to nullify the prevailing policy at the time of application. It converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court order, and remanded the matter to NBP's President to decide the applications per the then-existing policy within three months, emphasizing equitable implementation without cherry-picking.
Core Points
- Fathers of petitioners (Ayaz Ali and Asadullah) were NBP officers who died in service (2019 and 2021); petitioners applied immediately for jobs under deceased employee's quota but received no response or rejection.
- Sindh High Court dismissed their constitutional petitions relying on General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276), which struck down similar policies as violating equal opportunity under Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution.
- Supreme Court held the Muhammad Jalal judgment applies prospectively; applications must be considered under 2011 NBP policy (amended to 2016) in force at filing time, as no decision was communicated.
- NBP's 2022 policy superseded earlier ones but does not retroactively affect pending applications; equitable, non-discriminatory implementation required, without cherry-picking beneficiaries.
- Petition converted to appeal; remanded to NBP President for decision within three months, referencing prior ruling on prospectivity in Registrar, High Court of Sindh v. Rehana (2025).
Laws and Sections
| Law/Provision | Relevant Section/Article | Key Reference/Context |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 | Article 25 | Right to equality; policies creating preferential employment categories (e.g., deceased quota) questioned for discrimination. |
| Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 | Article 27 | Equal opportunity in public employment; hereditary jobs prohibited, emphasizing economic justice. |
| NBP Circular/Policy | Dated 02.12.2011 (amended up to 2016) | "Employment Opportunity for sons/daughters of In-service (Regular) deceased and retired/GHS/VHS Optants in clerical and non-clerical cadre"; basis for petitioners' claims. |
| Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 | Section 4 (as in force pre-2024 Amendment) | Required 5-judge bench for constitutional interpretation cases; noted in context of Muhammad Jalal judgment's validity. |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Order XXVII-A | Notices issued to Attorney General and Provincial Advocate Generals in Muhammad Jalal for constitutional questions. |
Judgment