| Case ID |
232d86eb-5e67-4c8d-8b24-be065fccaca5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-7096 of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 29, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 05, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court, presided over by Justices Nadeem Akhtar and Mahmood A. Khan, dismissed the constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Naseem Aqeel Rajput on April 29, 2021. The petitioner sought regularization of his position as Company Secretary at the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) without participating in the recruitment process. The court held that Rajput, being a contractual employee without any vested rights, could not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of mandamus. The decision emphasized that for such a writ to be granted, there must be an existing legal right and a corresponding duty imposed on the public authority. Since Rajput did not have a legal entitlement to regularization and had accepted a contractual appointment, the court found no basis to compel TCP to regularize his employment. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Muhammad Naseem Aqeel Rajput versus The Federation of Pakistan and others, the Sindh High Court addressed pivotal issues surrounding contractual employment within public sector companies. Filed as Constitution Petition No.D-7096 of 2019, the petitioners sought the regularization of their positions without undergoing the standard recruitment processes mandated by the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013. The case, decided on April 29, 2021, underlines the judiciary's stance on the limitations of contractual appointments and the prerequisites for invoking constitutional remedies such as writs of mandamus.
Rajput, employed as a Company Secretary at TCP on a three-year contractual basis, filed the petition arguing for the regularization of his service in accordance with the Federal Cabinet's decision dated June 18, 2019. He contended that his contractual status should not impede his right to seek permanent appointment. The petition raised significant questions about the rights of contractual employees and the scope of judicial intervention in administrative appointments.
The High Court, presided by Justices Nadeem Akhtar and Mahmood A. Khan, meticulously examined the legal framework governing public sector appointments. Referring to the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, specifically Section 199, and the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, the court elucidated that contractual employees do not possess inherent rights to regularization. The ruling emphasized that the appointment of a Company Secretary is at the discretion of the Board of the respective public sector company, as stipulated in Rule 13 of the Corporate Governance Rules.
Moreover, the court reinforced that writs of mandamus are discretionary remedies, necessitating a clear legal right of the petitioner and a corresponding duty of the respondent. In the absence of such a predetermined legal entitlement, as in Rajput's case, the court cannot compel an administrative authority to alter employment terms. The decision drew upon precedents like Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan and Government of Balochistan v. Dr. Zahida Kakar, underscoring the judiciary's consistent approach in maintaining the balance between administrative autonomy and individual employment rights.
The summary of the decision reflects the court's dedication to upholding established legal principles while addressing contemporary employment disputes in the public sector. By dismissing the petition, the Sindh High Court affirmed that contractual appointments are subject to the specific terms agreed upon at the time of hiring and that regularization cannot be imposed unilaterally without adherence to defined recruitment procedures. This judgment serves as a crucial reference for future cases involving contractual employment and the limits of judicial intervention in administrative matters.
The comprehensive analysis provided in the court's order not only resolves the immediate dispute but also delineates the boundaries of legal recourse available to contractual employees. It highlights the necessity for clear contractual terms and the importance of following prescribed administrative processes for appointments and regularizations within public sector entities. Consequently, this case holds significant implications for employment law, administrative justice, and the operational protocols of public sector organizations in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP),
Secretary Ministry of Commerce and Textile, (Commerce Division) Government of Pakistan, Islamabad
|
| Judges |
Nadeem Akhtar,
Mahmood A. Khan
|
| Lawyers |
Faizan Hussain Memon,
Muhammad Nishat Warsi, DAG,
Manzar Bashir
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD NADEEM AQEEL RAJPUT
|
| Respondents |
,
The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and Textile, (Commerce Division) Government of Pakistan, Islamabad
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 2843,
2021 PLC 1095
|
| Other Citations |
Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 98,
Government of Balochistan, Department of Health, through Secretary Civil Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar and 43 others 2005 SCMR 642,
Dr. Mubashar Ahmed v. PTCL, through Chairman, Islamabad and another 2007 PLC (C.S.) 737,
Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2009 SC 879,
Abid Iqbal Hafiz v. Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 2010 SC 841,
Suo Motu Case No.15 of 2010 (In re: Suo Motu action regarding regularization of contract employees of Zakat Department and appointment of Chairman of Central Zakat Council) 2013 SCMR 304,
Qazi Munir Ahmed v. Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital through Principal and others 2019 SCMR 648,
Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department Lahore and others v. Muhammad Arif and others 2020 SCMR 507,
Naureen Naz Butt v. Pakistan International Airlines 2020 SCMR 1625,
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board, through Chairman v. Raheel Ali Gohar and others 2020 SCMR 2068 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
2(1)(g),
13,
199
|