SC restores sacked govt staff


The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday restored govt staff, sacked via an earlier judgement which struck down the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act 2010, whereas exercising suo motu jurisdiction underneath Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

However, all evaluation petitions within the case had been dismissed by the apex courtroom bench in a 4:1 majority resolution. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah dissented with the bulk order which was introduced by Justice Umar Ata Bandial. The detailed order can be issued later.

All staff from 1996 to 1999 have been reinstated by the apex courtroom. 

Earlier on Wednesday, the AGP submitted the federal authorities’s proposal concerning the reinstatement of sacked staff.

However, the bench was not satisfied with the federal government’s proposal on Thursday and requested the AGP to provide his arguments on “reading down the relevant law”.

Also learn: SC urged to ‘read down’ sacked staff act

The AGP urged the courtroom to “read down” the provisions of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 to limit its validity and applicability solely to the extent of straightforward appointment/re-appointment of staff who had been appointed from 1993 to 1996 however terminated throughout 1996 to 1999.

He stated that these individuals had been appointed by the legislature act and never the manager. However, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed requested whether or not parliament might alter the fundamental construction of the Constitution.

The AGP replied that no fundamental construction was violated on account of the restoration of those staff via the act of parliament in 2010.

The AGP additionally learn out sure parts of parliament debate whereby it was being established that these staff had been terminated on account of political victimisation in the course of the interval of 1997 to 1999. No inquiry or present trigger was given earlier than their ultimate termination, he acknowledged.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah famous that parliament might make legal guidelines for the curiosity of a selected class of individuals.

Justice Bandial stated that the bigger bench has been fashioned on this case as a way to re-hear the matter. He stated that it isn’t within the public curiosity to dole out employments with out adhering to the method of recruitment.

Back to top button

Adblocker detected! Please consider reading this notice.

We've detected that you are using AdBlock Plus or some other adblocking software which is preventing the page from fully loading. We don't have any banner, Flash, animation, obnoxious sound, or popup ad. We do not implement these annoying types of ads! We need money to operate the site, and almost all of it comes from our online advertising. Please add to your ad blocking whitelist or disable your adblocking software.