• Compliance with court decisions is a constitutional requirement, not a courtesy, bench reminds Punjab and federal govts
• Ignoring or delaying court orders sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach
• Rules that workers hired, sacked and reinstated by successive governments were not at fault

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Friday regretted the non-implementation of an earlier Supreme Court judgement, observing that disregarding or delaying the implementation of the latter’s verdicts by the government amounted to challenging the very framework of the legal system.

The observation came as the court was hearing a set of contempt petitions against the Punjab and federal governments over their failure to implement a Dec 17, 2021, judgement, which had converted review proceedings into the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to safeguard the fundamental right to livelihood of a number of sacked government employees.

The review petitions had been filed against the SC’s Aug 17, 2021, judgement, which had rendered almost 17,000 government employees jobless by declaring illegal and unconstitutional a PPP-era law, the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act 2010 (Sera), under which thousands of people had been employed or promoted.

The employees belonged to the Intelligence Bureau, Commissioner Afghan Refugees, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, National Highway Authority, PTCL, Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, State Life Insurance Corporation, Civil Aviation Authority, Water and Power Development Authority, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd, and Trading Corporation of Pakistan.

On Friday, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi of the FCC emphasised that SC orders, issued when it was the apex court before the 27th Constitutional Amendment, were not merely recommendations or advisories, but legal mandates that had to be followed.

Justice Najafi was part of a three-member bench, headed by FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, which took up the contempt petitions concerning non-implementation of the SC judgement.

In a 10-page order, Justice Najafi observed that the SC decisions were the culmination of rigorous legal scrutiny and deliberation, intended to reflect the values and laws of the land.

“In a constitutional democracy, the rule of law is not just a principle but the foundation upon which the legitimacy of good governance in any system of government rests,” Justice Najafi observed.

The FCC noted that the SC, as the country’s apex court, had been entrusted with interpreting the law, ensuring justice and upholding the Constitution.

It said compliance with judicial decisions was not a matter of courtesy but a constitutional requirement.

Non-compliance not only disturbed the delicate equilibrium between the court’s prestige and the enforcement of rights but also set a dangerous precedent that could lead to executive overreach, Justice Najafi emphasised.

The implementation of judicial orders was also crucial to maintaining public confidence in the judicial system, the judgement said. If individuals or institutions could easily ignore or sidestep court decisions, public trust in the effectiveness of the judiciary and the government as a whole would be seriously undermined.

The erosion of such trust, it added, could ultimately undermine the democratic system.

Turning to the case, the FCC noted that the SC’s judgement required beneficiary employees to undergo relevant tests for their respective posts, to be conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) within three months.

Conducting aptitude, academic or skills tests was the employer’s responsibility. If the tests were not held, it could not be held against employees who had never refused to appear for them, the judgement said.

The FCC observed that the employees had been given jobs by one government, terminated by another, reinstated by a subsequent government, and then affected when the 2010 Act under which they had been reinstated was declared unlawful by the SC. The employees had committed no fault in these circumstances, it emphasised.

If the offer to take the tests was not made, the employees could not be placed at a disadvantage or denied the benefit of the SC’s order, the FCC said.

“We therefore hold that the conditions so imposed by the Supreme Court on the beneficiary employees were waived/diluted by the respondent department due to the passage of time and lethargy on its part, and not because of any fault of the employees.

“Such conduct cannot be rewarded with any sentence of appreciation,” the judgement said, adding that the employers’ inaction warranted caution and reflected a sorry state of affairs.

Published in Dawn, October 31st, 2026