KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Monday restrained the provincial government from issuing a seniority list of grade-19 and 20 officers of the provincial civil service, including several secretaries, on the basis of the recently enacted Sindh Civil Servants (Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments) (Amendments) Act, 2014.

A two-judge bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar gave the interim order on a constitutional petition of the provincial government officers who asked the court to strike down the newly promulgated law.

The petitioners were Altaf Ahmed Khan Bijarani, director general of planning and development, Karachi, Ghulam Akbar, special secretary of local government, Lubna Salahuddin, special secretary of education and literacy department, Syed Farrukh Habib, additional secretary of industries and commerce department, Abdul Rahim, additional finance secretary, Dr Mansoor Abbas Rizvi, special secretary of health department, Dr Niaz Abbasi, home secretary, Nazeer Hussain, special secretary of education and literacy department, Shariq Ahmed, special secretary of services and general administration department, Pervez Ahmed Seehar, programme director, planning and development department, Sajjad Hussain Abbasi, officer on special duty, Muhammad Saleem Raza, secretary of population welfare department and Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah, member board of revenue.

They impleaded the chief secretary, speaker of the Sindh Assembly and the provincial law secretary as respondents.

According to the petitioners, the new law was enacted for regularisation of blue-eyed ad hoc employees from date of their initial appointment, affecting their seniority.

Their counsel, Zamir Ghummro, told the judges that the provincial government promulgated the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment) Act, 1994 to regularise the services of employees who were appointed on an ad hoc basis.

He said that the provincial assembly had passed a new bill — the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments) (Amendments) Act, 2014 — making amendments in the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment) Act, 1994.

The counsel contended that the recent amendment aimed at regularisation of ad hoc employees from the date of initial appointment rather than from the commencement of the 1994 Act, which would subsequently result in favouring ad hoc employees by absorbing their services permanently with retrospective seniority.

He said that the illegal, unlawful, mala fide, discriminatory, and unconstitutional act of the government would impinge on other employees, including the petitioners, who were appointed on a regular basis. Besides, he said, it would adversely affect their seniority.

Advocate Ghummro submitted that the impugned act was enacted in haste and in disregard to the Constitution and rule of law. Moreover, the impugned act was in direct conflict with the judgements of the superior judiciary on the issues of seniority and regularisation, he added.

The petitioners’ counsel said that under Article 240 of the Constitution, all appointments were to be made through the federal and provincial public service commissions and the ad hoc appointments and its subsequent regularisation through an act of assembly was in violation of the constitutional provision.

The counsel said that the recent amendment in the act meant that the ad hoc employees would be regularised from the date of their initial appointment rather than from the commencement of the 1994 act, which would subsequently result in favouring ad hoc employees by absorbing their services permanently with retrospective seniority.

He said that the illegal, unlawful, mala fide, discriminatory, and unconstitutional act of the respondents would prejudice the petitioners as well as other employees who were appointed on a regular basis.

He also pointed out that under Section 8(4) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 the seniority of a civil servant had to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment.

However, he said, the services of the various assistant commissioners were regularised by virtue of the 1994 act and they could not be given backdated seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointment in pursuance of the impugned act, as vested rights of the petitioners shall be severely affected.

Besides, the counsel argued that the impugned act was in clear conflict with the recent judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan pronounced by Justice Amir Hani Muslim on June 12, last year.

The counsel said that the impugned act would result in creating a parallel structure by placing such employees who were appointed on an ad hoc basis, in violation of Article 240 of the Constitution, Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, 1973 and Rule 10 of the Rules, 1974.

He said that it was apparent that the law was promulgated in order to serve the favourites of the respondents who were even appointed without due process of law, which amounted to grave abuse of power, conferred upon the provincial legislature under the Constitution.

Advocate Ghummro said the petitioners were appointed with due process of law and were serving for 20 years and unsettling their seniority at this crucial moment of their career had jeopardised their rights, which could not be taken away by retrospective legislation.

The petitioners asked the court to declare that the impugned act was illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, mala fide, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of principles of natural justice, equity and fairness.

The petitioner civil servants also asked the court to restrain the respondents from issuing a seniority list on the basis of the impugned act and/or unsettling the seniority of the petitioners.

The bench issued a notice to the respondents and put off the hearing to May 5.