SC holds prolonged ad hoc postings exploitative

• Rules that stopgap arrangements cannot continue indefinitely• Rejects Pakistan Railways appeal against FST promotion ruling

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that prolonged ad-hoc, look-after, current, acting or additional charge postings amount to exploitation that not only is egregious. also frustrates the spirit of service laws.

The strong-worded observation came as the SC rejected an appeal filed by Pakistan Railways against the April 26. 2024 order of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), Lahore, regarding the antedated departmental promotion of Shahkar Qudos Hashmi.

“Unlimited. unbounded or infinite period does not support the philosophy of the phrase ‘stopgap arrangement,’ which is not meant to keep employees on the tenterhooks of uncertainty like a sword of Damocles,” observed Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who headed a two-judge SC bench.

The case dates back to 2009, when respondent Shahkar Hashmi was appointed as an assistant chemist. metallurgist (BPS-17) on a two-year contract. In 2011, he was recommended by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and appointed regularly to the same post.

The central point of the dispute arose on March 2. 2012, when he was given the additional charge of the higher post of CC&M (BPS-18). Mr Hashmi continued to perform duties in the higher position on an ad-hoc. look-after basis for nearly eight years without a break. It was not until Aug 17, 2020, that he was finally promoted to the BPS-18 post on a regular basis.

Aggrieved that his eight years of service in the higher grade were not recognised for seniority or financial benefits. Mr Hashmi filed a departmental appeal for antedated promotion, which was rejected on May 26, 2021.

He subsequently approached the FST Lahore, which allowed his appeal. directed the department to pay him the perks and privileges for holding the higher charge from March 2, 2012, besides placing his name before the next Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion with effect from the date he completed five years of regular service in BPS-17.

Pakistan Railways challenged the FST order,. the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, observing that it found no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the tribunal’s judgement.

Justice Mazhar observed that every employee has an inherent right to be considered for promotion on the basis of merit. performance, but due to unjustified glitches, procrastination and administrative sluggishness, the respondent in the present case was deprived of that right.

“The laws are made for man. man is not made for the laws,” he said, adding that a wrong order or action could not be perpetuated and it was the SC’s ultimate duty to remedy injustice.

Justice Mazhar observed that stopgap arrangements include engagements such as ad-hoc, look-after charge, current charge, acting charge or additional charge. However. neither do such engagements amount to permanent or regular appointments within a cadre nor do they confer any vested right to regular promotion in the higher grade.

At the same time, the judgement emphasised that stopgap arrangements must not continue indefinitely. It said the state, under the Constitution, was duty-bound to ensure social. economic justice in order to guarantee transparency and fairness in the civil servants’ service structure as part of the broader doctrine of good governance.

The SC observed that statutory rules. regulations, while providing for disciplinary actions and punishments, also protect the service rights of employees, and failure to follow such laws and rules amounts to inherent illegality and infringement of employees’ rights.

Referring to Article 3 of the Constitution, the judgement noted that the state was obliged to ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation. the gradual fulfilment of the principle — from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

“In our view,” the judgement stressed, “the provision was aimed at nipping in the bud oppressive or autocratic actions while ensuring even-handedness. non-discriminatory treatment at the grassroots level.”

The doctrine of complete justice, the judgement added, is a wide-ranging. all-inclusive concept aimed at ensuring justice at all costs so that principles of fairness are not compromised or distorted on the basis of mere technicalities.

Published in Dawn, May 17th, 2026