Syed SIKANDAR ALI SHAH vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Production arts

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

Syed SIKANDAR ALI SHAH VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Production arts. 25 & 199---Employment---Contractual employee of Pakistan Steel Mills---Regularization of service, seeking of---absence of statutory or policy framework supporting regularization of service---Closure and liquidation of Pakistan Steel Mills---Effect---Judicial review in matters of regularization of service---Scope---The petitioner was employed since 2010 as supervisor horticulture at Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) and sought regularization of his service from the date of joining whilst relying on a 2013 cabinet sub-committee decision which allowed such regularization after one year of contract service---The core issue for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether a contractual employee of Pakistan Steel Mills could claim regularization of service under article 199 of the Constitution, despite the closure and liquidation of PSM and in the absence of a clear statutory or policy framework for such regularization?"---Held: Cabinet division order dated September 4, 2024, mandated PSM's liquidation due to bankruptcy and closure since June 2015, with significant staff retrenchment upheld by the Supreme Court---Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) was in dire financial straits, and the liquidation order precluded regularization as regularization of contractual employees required a clear legal basis, a well-defined policy, and a fair assessment of the employee's performance and qualifications---Without these, employees could not claim regularization of service---Contractual employees did not have an automatic right to regularization unless explicitly supported by law or policy---Regularization lacking such a legal foundation was deemed a violation of fairness, transparency, and meritocracy---Furthermore, the argument of discrimination in such cases had been rejected by the apex court, as discrimination presupposed a legal entitlement to the initial benefit, which was absent---Consequently, regularization necessitated legal backing and a transparent merit-based procedure---The Supreme Court has underscored that regularization was primarily an executive policy decision, generally not subject to judicial intervention---Courts could only review such policies if they infringed upon constitutional rights---The principle of institutional autonomy, crucial for effective decision-making, further supported judicial restraint in policy matters---This autonomy was vital for public institutions to protect public interest and uphold democratic values, including academic freedom---Petitioner could not seek service regularization via a Constitutional petition---However, it was for the respondent's competent authority to consider the petitioner's case in light of the 2013 Cabinet decision---Petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for enforcing Pakistan Steel Mills' service rules for the regularization of his services, under art. 199 of the Constitution---Furthermore, in the absence of a clear policy applicable to the respondent mills, especially considering its closure in 2015, no intervention by the High Court was warranted---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syed SIKANDAR ALI SHAH vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Production arts — 2025 PLC(CS) 1638 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC