AMBREEN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN art — 2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AMBREEN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN art. 199---Contractual employee---Breach of contract by the employer---Terms and conditions of contract, enforcement of----Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---High Court exercised its Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter due to element of patent illegality and perversity apparent on the record---Fact in brevity were that the petitioners were employed on contract under the project supervised by Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and were later on constrained to filed the present constitutional petition under article 199 of the Constitution after their salaries were unilaterally reduced by the respondents through an office memorandum and also deducted previously paid salaries and issued revised contracts---The petitioners argued that the executive could not retrospectively alter or rescind vested rights accrued under valid contracts without lawful authority---Held:---The office memorandum in question for implementation of the revised standard pay package for the project staff directly recruited for development projects could not be made effective onto the petitioners without obtaining the mandatory approval from the competent forum---Prior approval from competent forum was essential before implementing the revised standard pay package on the petitioners---Since the salary slips were issued earlier in accordance with the pay package approved, the subsequent instructions/orders of Finance Division could not be made applicable on salaries fixed prior in time, especially in the absence of approval from the competent forum---Respondents, under the law, were neither empowered to recover the over payment drawn by the employees of the project, nor were they authorized to withhold the salaries of the petitioners, especially when the terms and conditions were settled inter se the parties, therefore, the same were binding upon them---The remunerations fixed by respondent No. 2 under the contracts with the petitioners were completely independent of any Finance Division's orders---Thus, any subsequent order by the executive could not threaten the vested rights of the petitioners already accrued under the settled contracts---action of recovering the over-payments drawn by the employees of the project was highly unwarranted, unjustified and illegal---Issuance of subsequent office memorandum could not renounce and/or retract the remuneration already settled earlier---Office memorandum in question was not applicable on the petitioners, as the same was never approved by the competent forum,---The act of ordering recovery of alleged over-payments from the petitioners, and the arbitrary implementation of the said office memorandum was thus perverse, unlawful, and unjust, as it infringed upon the vested rights of the petitioners which had accrued under the mutually settled terms and conditions between the parties---Hence, the act of reducing the salaries of the petitioners was thus illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio---Impugned letter was set aside, with strict directions to the respondents to refrain from recovering the over-payments from the petitioners---The respondents were further directed to release the amounts already recovered from the petitioners by returning them forthwith---Despite the matter relating to breach/enforcement of terms and conditions of a contract, the present Constitutional petition was maintainable given the patent illegality and perversity floating on the face of record---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AMBREEN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Executive order affecting vested rights---Retrospective effect---Scope---Where any existing rights are jeopardized by giving an executive order retrospective effect, further causing inconvenience or injustice so as to hamper the vested rights, then the courts will not favour an interpretation giving retrospective operation to the same. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AMBREEN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN When a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AMBREEN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Contractual employee---Subsequent reduction in salary against the settled pay fixed under the contract---Locus poenitentiae, doctrine of---Applicability---The terms and conditions already settled between the parties, qua fixation of salaries, rendered the contracts as past and closed transactions by virtue of which certain vested rights were already accrued; this further brings forth the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, whereby the Executive is barred from unilaterally rescinding and retrieving the benefit availed by its recipients---Thus, any subsequent unilateral decisions taken by the State functionaries cannot supersede and/or replace the already agreed upon stipulations contained in the contracts to the disadvantage of the employees. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AMBREEN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Breach of contract---Matters concerning enforcement of contractual obligations---Terms and conditions of contract, settlement of---Scope---High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction cannot settle the terms and conditions of a contract between the parties, nor can it direct the Executive to incorporate or omit any specific stipulation therein, as such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Executive---It is equally well-established that in matters concerning the enforcement of contractual obligations, High Court ordinarily refrains from exercising constitutional jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the contract and/or to provide a remedy for its breach---The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be ousted, especially where an element of perversity or patent illegality is prima facie apparent on the face of the record---It is a recognized principle of law that albeit the constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised ordinarily in matters arising out of breach of contract, however, an exception exists where the breach has been committed by the Government, a semi-Government body, or a Local authority, necessitating the resolution of intricate and disputed legal questions---In such circumstances, the grievance may appropriately be addressed through the exercise of jurisdiction under art. 199 of the Constitution. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AMBREEN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Vested right accrued prior in time cannot be subsequently taken away with retrospective effect.

AMBREEN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN art — 2025 PLC(CS) 1401 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC