Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4616 = 2026 SLD 4616 = 2026 PLJ 60
Federal Constitution Court of Pakistan
C.A. No. 103-K of 2024
Presented By: Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Muhammad Karim Khan Agha JUDGES
Mr. Malik Muhammad Aqil Awan, Sr. ASC for Appellants. Mr. Kafeel Ahmad Abbasi, Addl. AG Sindh for
Respondents No. 1-2. Mr. Muhammad Sarfaraz Ali Matlo, ASC assisted by M/s Fayaz Ali Metlo & Athar Hussain, Advocates and Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, AOR. for
Respondents No. 3-4. Date of hearing: 26.03.2026.

MUHAMMAD QUTUB-UD-DIN and others--Appellants

VERSUS

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Government Sindh and others--Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3), 199

Sindh Employees’ Social Security Institution (Revised) Service Regulations, 2006-- ----Regln. 9(3) & (4)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 185(3) & 199--Service Matter--Appointed in SESSI on a contractual basis--Seniority--Retrospective Regularization--Contractual Appointment--Regular Appointment--SESSI--Retrospective Seniority--Vested Rights--Constitutional Petition--Maintainability----Equality Before Law--Discrimination in Service Matters--Administrative Discretion--Statutory Entitlement--Seniority Reckoned From Date of Regular Appointment--Contractual Appointment Distinct From Regular Appointment--Contract Service Not Regular Service--Retrospective Seniority Requires Express Legal Authority--Principle laid down in above-noted judgments clearly established that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution could be invoked where act of a statutory authority was violative of service rules or regulations, even if such regulations were non-statutory in nature--No doubt, SESSI, being a statutory body, was performing public functions under above-noted legal framework--Therefore, alleged arbitrary exercise of authority by SESSI, allowing a retrospective regularization to private respondent and placing him above employees recruited on a permanent basis during his contractual employment, was well within settled scope of constitutional jurisdiction--Regulation 9(3) of Regulations of 2006 assumed central importance, as it unequivocally provided that seniority of a member of service was to be reckoned from date of his regular appointment--A plain reading of aforesaid provision left little room for ambiguity--Regulation did not make date of initial appointment, contractual service, or ad hoc service basis for determination of seniority; rather, it expressly linked seniority with date of regular appointment--Expression regular appointment employed in above Regulation carried a definite legal connotation in service jurisprudence and was clearly distinguishable from a contractual appointment--The two expressions were neither synonymous nor interchangeable--A contractual appointment, by its very nature, was tenure-based and did not confer…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register