Supreme Court Protects Low-Grade Employees: Orders Verification of Appointment Letters and Release of Salaries

You are currently viewing Supreme Court Protects Low-Grade Employees: Orders Verification of Appointment Letters and Release of Salaries

Date of Judgment: 4 June 2025
Bench: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Case: Arab & Another v. Province of Sindh (Health Department) — Civil Petitions No. 933-K to 935-K of 2023

Introduction

In an important pronouncement for service jurisprudence and constitutional law, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has set aside a Sindh High Court judgment that had dismissed the petitions of three low-paid employees of the Health Department. The Court directed the authorities to verify their appointment letters and, if found genuine, release all pending salaries and restore them to service.

The ruling sends a strong message that poor, low-grade employees cannot be punished for systemic lapses while higher officials, often responsible for recruitment irregularities, escape accountability. The judgment strengthens the constitutional protections of fair trial (Article 10A), right to livelihood (Article 9), and equality before law (Article 25) for public employees.

Case Background

The petitioners — a Driver, Chowkidar, and Ward Boy — were recruited in District Tharparkar by the Sindh Health Department in BPS-01 to BPS-04. Their recruitment process followed the usual procedure:

  • Posts were advertised in newspapers;
  • Candidates underwent interviews and scrutiny by the District Recruitment Committee (DRC);
  • Their antecedents were verified through the police;
  • They passed the medical fitness test; and
  • They were issued formal appointment letters.

Despite fulfilling all formalities and performing duties, their names were later excluded from the salary list and replaced with others. Without any notice, show-cause, or inquiry, they were deprived of their wages, forcing them into economic hardship.

The employees challenged this action before the Sindh High Court. The High Court dismissed their petitions on the ground that the matter involved “disputed questions of fact” that could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. This dismissal left the employees without remedy, compelling them to approach the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners’ Contentions

  • The appointments were lawful, valid, and duly recommended by the competent District Recruitment Committee.
  • Appointment letters, once issued, create vested legal rights that cannot be ignored or silently withdrawn.
  • Withholding salaries without any charge-sheet, inquiry, or hearing is unconstitutional.
  • Denial of wages violates Articles 3, 4, 9, 10A, 14, 18, and 25 of the Constitution.
  • The High Court wrongly dismissed their petitions instead of directing simple verification of the record.

Respondents’ Stance

  • The Additional Advocate General Sindh argued that the recruitment process had irregularities.
  • Suggested that the petitioners’ appointment letters be verified from the Health Department’s record.
  • If genuine, the employees should be reinstated and paid; if fake, appropriate action could be taken.

Supreme Court’s Findings

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar authored the judgment. The Court made several important observations:

1. Misapplication of Writ Jurisdiction

  • Normally, writ jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked to resolve disputed facts.
  • However, in this case, the existence of appointment letters was admitted by the Department.
  • The High Court should have directed verification instead of dismissing the petitions outright.

2. Vested Rights of Employees

  • Appointment letters issued by a competent authority, without conditions, create vested rights enforceable in law.
  • Such rights cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily or by administrative silence.

3. Protection of Vulnerable Employees

  • The Court lamented that it is often the innocent, low-paid employees who suffer the consequences of administrative lapses, while those responsible at higher levels go unpunished.
  • This selective accountability violates Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law.

4. Fair Trial and Livelihood

  • Depriving an employee of salary without due process amounts to depriving him of his livelihood (Article 9).
  • Article 10A enshrines the right to a fair trial, which applies equally to departmental actions.
  • Without inquiry, notice, or hearing, denial of salary is unlawful and unconstitutional.

5. Justice-Oriented Approach

  • Courts must not dismiss petitions mechanically. Instead, they should adopt a justice-oriented approach and issue directions to resolve disputes through simple verification.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the petitions, converting them into appeals. It set aside the Sindh High Court’s judgment and issued the following directions:

  1. The Secretary Health Sindh shall verify the appointment letters and recruitment record.
  2. The petitioners must be given a fair hearing during the verification process.
  3. If the appointments are found genuine, their pending salaries shall be released immediately and they shall be restored to their posts.
  4. The exercise must be completed within two months.

Key Legal Takeaways

  • Appointment letters = vested rights. Once issued, they cannot be denied without due process.
  • Writ jurisdiction can extend to factual issues where appointments are admitted and only verification is required.
  • Article 10A safeguards fair trial even in departmental disputes.
  • Low-grade employees deserve judicial protection, especially where administrative arbitrariness targets them.
  • The Court condemned the unfair culture of punishing the weak while sparing the powerful.

Broader Impact

This ruling is significant for service law because:

  • It provides a lifeline to low-grade employees, who are often deprived of pay on flimsy grounds.
  • It reaffirms that courts must look beyond technicalities to provide substantive justice.
  • It strengthens the doctrine that employment rights cannot be nullified silently without notice or inquiry.
  • It balances accountability by requiring authorities to pursue actual wrongdoers, not scapegoats.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arab v. Province of Sindh is a landmark protection for vulnerable public servants. By recognizing that appointment letters carry enforceable rights, and by condemning the practice of targeting poor employees, the Court has reinforced constitutional guarantees of dignity, livelihood, and equality. This case highlights that justice is not only about enforcing rules but also about protecting the weakest from the arbitrary exercise of state power.