How the law of reinstatement of government employees is in line with constitution: SC


Supreme Court (SC) has raised the question how the law of reinstatement of employees is in line with the constitution.

The review petitions against the court’s decision on dismissal of the government employees who were reinstated under act-2010 came up for hearing before a five members larger bench of SC presided over by Justice Umar Ata Bandial Monday.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial inquired were the SUI Gas employees appointed after appearing in test and interview.
Wasim Sajjad, counsel for employees of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) told the court appointments were made through walk-in interviews.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired from the counsel for SNGPL how the contracts were restored which expired 11 years before. What deed was done by the employees whose contracts were restored. Were all employees injured in terror act.

Counsel for SNGPL employees told the court employees were reinstated under parliament decision. Parliament had reached the decision that all the sacked employees were subjected to political victimization.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah raised the question where are the evidence of political victimization. Why only these people were reinstated. There will be more other people than them who will be fit for the service and in whose place they were reinstated.

Counsel Wasim Sajjad took the plea court should call the record of debate held in parliament on this issue and review it. The employees will go where at this stage of their age. If government has committed mistake then its punishment should not be given to the employees.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired pension is given after how much period of service in Sui gas. Can the pension be given after ten years of sacking from service.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah while addressing the lawyer Sajjad Ali Shah raised the question how the law of reinstatement of employees is in line with the constitution. You have not given even a single argument to the effect that law is in conformity with the constitution. You should file written arguments.

Aitzaz Ahsan, counsel for the officers of Intelligence Bureau (IB) took the plea IB officers are civil servants. Court decision is not applicable to them. In 1996 a care taker government had dismissed IB employees. One interim government removed from service several employees. The care taker government is not empowered to dismiss the employees.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked SC has already given decision in 2000 on the matter of care taker government. We can not reopen the case in any other review case after 21 years.

Aitzaz Ahsan took the plea SC misinterpreted the law of reinstatement of employees in its decision. Act was not examined in right way in SC decision.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked if SC sacks some other person then the specific person can not be reinstated through the legislation of the parliament. SC decision is not saying this that the employees appointed by a party should be sacked. Why the parliament benefitted a specific group by enacting legislation.

Iftikhar Gillani counsel for employees argued SC has already said legislation by the parliament can not be nullified. No one can challenge the prudence of the legislators. SC should review its decision.

The court while adjourning the hearing of the case for one day till Tuesday.