The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that retaining employees performing permanent functions on contractual terms for years amounts to economic exploitation and administrative arbitrariness. The court also observed that the issue of regularisation is not confined to service laws alone but is also linked to fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the right to life under Article 9 and equality before law under Article 25.
Detailed Judgment on Regularisation
According to a detailed written judgment, a two-member bench of FCC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah dismissed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (CPLA) filed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government. The bench upheld the Peshawar High Court’s decision regarding the reinstatement and regularisation of two dispensers from the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
The court observed that the interpretation of the right to life under Article 9 is broad and encompasses the right to employment and livelihood. The judgment stated that engaging employees on contract against permanent posts for extended periods while denying them job security is inconsistent with constitutional requirements.
Case of Tanveer Ahmad and Another Employee
The court noted that respondents Tanveer Ahmad and another employee had been appointed as dispensers on a contractual basis in the former FATA in 2002 and 2007, respectively. It held that they fell within the scope of the federal government’s 2008 policy decision under which contractual employees in Basic Pay Scales (BPS) 1 to 15 appointed before June 4, 2008, were to be regularised.
The judgment further stated that neither the advertisement nor the appointment letters indicated that the employees had been hired for a specific project. Therefore, termination of their services on the ground that a project had ended lacked legal justification. The court also held that differential treatment of employees placed in identical circumstances violated the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.
Condemnable Practice of Long-Term Contractual Employment
Emphasising the issue of long-term contractual employment, the court observed that keeping employees on temporary or contractual terms for years and depriving them of the benefits of regularisation was a condemnable practice. This practice had repeatedly been criticised by the superior judiciary in various judgments. The Federal Constitutional Court concluded that the principle of regularisation is rooted in justice, equality and the protection of fundamental constitutional rights. Finding no merit in the KP government’s petition, the court rejected the request for leave to appeal.
PTCL Pensioners Case Consolidated
Separately, the FCC also consolidated all cases relating to PTCL pensioners and adjourned further proceedings indefinitely. A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Arshad Hussain Shah heard the matter.
During the hearing, former judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui appeared before the court on behalf of PTCL employees. He argued that the matter had previously been decided by a three-member bench of the Supreme Court, whereas the present case was being heard by a two-member bench of the Federal Constitutional Court.
Responding to the argument, Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan observed that there were several judicial precedents on the issue. He stated that the constitution of a larger bench was not necessary for hearing a matter arising from a Supreme Court judgment and that a two-member bench of the Federal Constitutional Court was competent to hear the case. The Chief Justice remarked that do not worry; this two-member bench is sufficient for the purpose. Subsequently, the FCC ordered the consolidation of all related cases involving PTCL employees and pensioners and adjourned the matter indefinitely.
