Nazir Ahmed Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan and others
This matter concerns civil appeals filed against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the determination of seniority between regular employees and those whose ad hoc appointments were subsequently regularized. The core legal question was whether the respondent organization could grant retrospective seniority to ad hoc employees, thereby adversely affecting the seniority of existing regular employees, based on a directive from the Prime Minister and a subsequent Board resolution. The Supreme Court held that while the organization had the authority to regularize services, it lacked the power to grant retrospective seniority that would prejudice the rights of existing regular employees. The Court emphasized that seniority must be determined from the date of regular appointment rather than the date of initial temporary or ad hoc appointment. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment to the extent that it had granted the respondents seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointments, reaffirming the principle that seniority is counted from the date of regular induction into service.
- Can an employer grant retrospective seniority to ad hoc employees that adversely affects the seniority of existing regular employees?
- Does the power to regularize services of ad hoc employees include the authority to determine their seniority retrospectively?
- From what date should seniority be counted for employees whose services were initially ad hoc and later regularized?
- Sections 21 to 24, Karachi Port Trust Act 1886
ORDER
' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J. --- These two appeals, with leave of the Court, are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi whereby the learned High Court passed the following order:-- "Insofar as petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned, they were inducted on regular basis prior to the adhoc appointments of the private respondent and would stand senior to the private respondents. However petitioners No. 3 to 5, who were subsequently appointed in disregard of promise made to the private respondents that upon creation of vacancies they would be adjusted, we are of the view that since respondents No. 3 to 5 have been inducted in service on regular basis after 2.2.1991, they shall rank junior to those whose services were regularized w,e,f, 2.2.1991. Hence we find no justification to interfere with the seniority list and dismiss the petition",
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of these appeals; are that appellants were appointed on 15.2.1990 in the establishment of respondent No. 2 initially as Traffic Supervisor in Grade-I, on 12.5.1986 in Grade-II and promoted on confirm basis as Traffic Supervisor in Grade-I on 20.6.1991 and in Grade-II on 12.2.1991. The respondents though appointed prior in time of the appellants were admittedly appointed on adhoc basis till their services were regularized under the directive of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the year 1995.
3.The case of the appellants is that the respondents were appointed as ad hoc employees in the establishment of respondent No. 2 on certain considerations including political influences. The services of the appellants were regularized much before the respondents, as such respondents cannot be considered as senior from the appellants.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents as well as the respondents, present in person, contended that they were appointed on adhoc basis, however, their services were regularized w.e.f. from the date of adhoc appointments in pursuance of the directive of the Prime Minister of Pakistan and in this regard a resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees on 12.10.1995.
5.We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the record. From the perusal of record, it appears that appellants were appointed much before the regular appointments of the respondents. The only question which need to address, in these appeals, is that whether the respondents can be appointed on regular basis retrospectively affecting the seniority of the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondents as well as the respondents, present in person, in support of their contention, heavily relied upon the directive issued by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees. From perusal of the Prime Minister's directive, without making any comments over it, it appears that through this directive, the respondent No. 2 was only asked to regularize the services of adhoc employees and was clearly silent about the determination of their seniority or otherwise. It further appears from the resolution passed on . 12.10.1995 by the Board of Trustees that it only directed their services were regularized retrospectively though we have also serious reservation on the issuance of said resolution.
6.The learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied upon Sections 21 to 24 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 but perusal of these sections reveals that the Board has been given powers for regulating the services etc. of the employees but there is no such power on the Boards to give retrospective seniority to anyone of the officers/officials working with them.
7.In the case of Khalid Mahmood v. S.M. Ilyas Zaidi (1993 SCM R 1119), this Court held that the seniority amongst the employees will be counted from the date of their regular appointments and not from the date of temporary appointments.
6. In the foregoing circumstances, these appeals are allowed as a result whereof, the impugned judgment is set aside, only to the extent of respondents who were declared senior in terms of para 3 of the impugned judgment, as regular employees from the date of their ad hoc appointments.
These are the reasons of our short of even date.