ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court of Pakistan Monday questioned why the government itself came up with a proposal for the relief of sacked employees, who have served the government and semi-autonomous bodies for 12 years.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted hearing of the review petitions of the federal government and the sacked employees against its judgment.
Justice Mushir Alam, before his retirement (August 17, 2021), had delivered the judgment declaring Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires and said the effect of such declaration is that any/all the benefits accrued to be beneficiaries are to be ceased with immediate effect. “The beneficiaries of the Act, 2010, who are still in service, will go back to their previous positions, i.e. to date when the operation of the Act 2010 has taken effect,” the judgment further said.
During the hearing, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said that the court has sympathy with the employees who are on the roads because of its judgment and are aware of that it is not their fault that they have been sacked but the apex court has to examine only the constitutional and legal aspect of the case. He asked Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan that the government itself has realized that law passed by the Parliament was unconstitutional, but now it wanted to give the employees relief because of length of service i.e. 12 years and the age factor.
He said that the government through parliament can do something for the benefit of the sacked employees, who have worked in the government sector for 12 years. The attorney general replied that the government through him is defending the employees.
Justice Qazi Muhammad Ameen, who seemed not happy with the suggestions given to the government for relief of sacked employees, said while hearing the review petitions why we (judges) are giving recommendations.
During the proceedings, the attorney general said that the bench while hearing the case said that the present government is run on ordinance. He added that the most of the ordinances were issued by the government which had passed the impugned law (Act 2010).
He said that the maximum life of an ordinance is 240 days. He said that the ordinance was issued for the extension of the NAB Chairman tenure, adding keeping the chairman on the post through ordinance is against the constitutional provisions.
Justice Bandial questioned that how many workers have been getting pensions whose cases are deemed past and closed transactions. The attorney general was asked to submit a report about the people who are getting pension in violation of the judgment, and who could get benefit, though they were reinstated in light of the law, which was unconstitutional.