SUO MOTU CASE NO. 24 OF 2010: In the matter of vs NOT
This Suo Motu case concerns the legality and propriety of re-employing government officials on contract basis after their superannuation, particularly within disciplinary forces like the Police and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The Supreme Court examined whether the retention of specific officers, while others in similar positions were terminated, constituted discriminatory treatment in violation of constitutional guarantees. The Court scrutinized the government's justification for retaining the Director-General of the FIA, which was purportedly based on national security requirements, and reviewed classified documentation provided by the Secretary Interior. The core legal question addressed was whether the selective retention of contract employees, despite the termination of others similarly situated, violates the principle of equality before the law. The Court emphasized that the government must ensure non-discriminatory application of its employment policies. The proceedings were adjourned to allow the Federation to file a comprehensive reply regarding the status of contract employees across various ministries, with the Court directing the Secretary Establishment to compile complete data to ensure transparency and compliance with constitutional standards regarding public employment.
- Does the selective retention of a contract employee in a disciplinary force, while others similarly placed are terminated, constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the government justify the retention of a contract employee after superannuation solely on the basis of national security without demonstrating a non-discriminatory policy?
- Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 25, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Mr. Jawed Bukhari, Additional Director-General, FIA has submitted report and stated that significant progress has been made in the investigation of the case on the basis of which further incriminating material is being collected to ascertain the involvement of the persons in the commission of offence. However, it has been pointed out to him that he has to conduct investigation independently and he should make all out efforts to bring the culprits to book, whosoever they may be, and at the same time pace of the investigation should also be accelerated by collecting evidence as early as possible.
2. In response to notice, the Advocates-General of all the Provinces have submitted details of the persons who have been re-employed on contract after superannuation. They are directed deliver copy of the same to the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan who shall assist the Court. The Commissioner ICT has stated that no one is performing duties on contract in the ICT.
3. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court stated that on having received notice along with the order dated 7-3-2011, it has become necessary to submit reply on behalf of the Federation, as according to his version, the scope of re-employment on contract basis has been enlarged by applying Article 9 of the Constitution, which deals with a Fundamental Right of a person. We pointed out to him that the Government of Pakistan was required initially to look into the cases of the officers of the Disciplinary Forces, like Police and FIA who have been re-employed on contract for different periods after superannuation, including DG FIA. But despite repeated observations of this Court except removing/terminating the contract of some of the members of the Disciplinary Forces (Police etc.) including Provincial Police Officer Sindh and others, no further progress has been made. Mr. Wasim Ahmed, DG FIA is still continuing against the same post although, without prejudice to his case on merits, this Court has made observations against him from time to time regarding poor investigation of the case. While other members of the Disciplinary Forces have been removed, his retention, prima facie, seems to be discriminatory, i,e, against the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution because if all of them were serving on contract basis and according to the stand of the Federal Government, they were performing duties to the satisfaction, their services have been terminated but DG FIA, who is also a similarly placed person is continuing in office. He stated that according to the instructions conveyed to him by the Secretary Establishment, who is one of the members of the Committee constituted by the competent authority to examine such cases, his services are required in connection with some national security matters. When we inquired from Secretary Establishment about the basis of the same, he stated that the Secretary Interior had produced some material in the meeting, which was with him, therefore, Secretary Interior was asked to produce the same before the Court, who produced a document and claimed it to be a classified one. We have seen the document and returned the same by putting signature of the Court Associate on one of the copies thereof.
4. The learned counsel further stated that today case may be adjourned, enabling him to have some time to file reply and make submission in response to the order dated 7-3-2011 because 47 other employees whose list has been filed are working on contract basis in 22 Ministries whereas in pursuance of order dated 7-3-2011, no information has been received so far from the remaining 24 Ministries and in the meanwhile the Secretary Establishment shill collect such information from them as well.
5. In view of the request made by the learned counsel, case is postponed to 16-3-2011. Notice in the meanwhile be also issued to Attorney General for Pakistan as the question of interpretation of the constitutional provision in this case may be involved.