Permanent-Nature Jobs on Contract Declared Unconstitutional
According to the verdict, appointments on a contract basis for work of a permanent nature will be considered unconstitutional. The court stated that the basis for regularization of employees lies in the principles of equality and fundamental constitutional rights.
The court ordered the regularization of dispensers from the former FATA region and directed the provincial government to issue regularization notifications effective from their appointments in 2002. The constitutional court also released a four-page written judgment authored by Justice Arshad Hussain.
According to the ruling, the employees’ case falls within the scope of the federal cabinet decision of August 29, 2008. The cabinet had decided in 2008 to regularize all employees in grades 1 to 15. The record does not establish that these employees were recruited for any specific project.
The judgment further stated that instead of being regularized, the employees were unlawfully dismissed in 2010. It emphasized that the matter is not merely an employment dispute but one involving fundamental rights. The case, according to the court, is directly linked to the constitutional right to livelihood, and a stable job is essential for the protection of that right.
The Federal Constitutional Court held that contract appointments against permanent positions are not legally valid. It observed that the Constitution envisions equal treatment for all citizens and noted that the temporary hiring of employees in government institutions has become a common practice. The judgment added that the superior judiciary has consistently opposed temporary appointments for permanent jobs.
Also Read: Field Marshal Asim Munir: a symbol of stability and diplomatic vision
