The Supreme Court of Pakistan has delivered a landmark judgment, holding that service rendered on a contractual basis cannot be counted towards the qualifying service required for promotion to higher posts. The court also clarified that contract employees do not fall within the definition of a 'civil servant' under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973.
Key Rulings by the Supreme Court
A three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui announced the reserved judgment in two civil appeals filed against a decision of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's ruling, stating that contractual service cannot be included in the minimum qualifying service required for promotion.
The court emphasized that under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the relevant rules, a contract employee is explicitly excluded from the definition of a 'civil servant.' Consequently, contractual service cannot be treated as equivalent to regular government service for promotion purposes.
Distinction Between Ad Hoc and Contractual Appointments
The judgment drew a clear distinction between ad hoc and contractual appointments, observing that they have different legal statuses. An ad hoc appointment is a temporary arrangement that continues until a regular appointment is made, whereas contractual employment is governed by the terms of a fixed-term agreement. Contractual employment does not confer any right to permanent appointment or regularisation unless specifically provided by law or government policy.
The bench ruled that seniority and eligibility for promotion are determined solely from the date of regular appointment, and the period served under a contract cannot be taken into account for that purpose.
No Legal Right Based on Past Mistakes
The court further observed that an unlawful benefit mistakenly extended to one employee in the past does not create a legal right for others to claim the same concession. The judgment stated that if another employee had mistakenly been allowed to count contractual service in the past, such an error cannot be cited as a legal basis for extending the same benefit to others. An illegal or erroneous action, the court said, cannot be perpetuated on the principle of equality.
Recognition of Previous Service for Limited Purposes
The Supreme Court also held that previous service in the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) or any other federal institution might be recognised for limited purposes, such as pay protection or pension, but cannot be counted towards the qualifying service required for promotion in the Sindh government.
The court disposed of both civil appeals while maintaining the decision of the Sindh Service Tribunal.
