Case Overview

In a significant constitutional adjudication, the Lahore High Court has authoritatively held that the inter-se seniority of employees, whose services were initially contractual and later regularized with retrospective effect, shall be determined strictly in accordance with the merit list prepared by the Selection Authority at the time of their initial contractual recruitment.

Factual Background

The petition arose out of a dispute concerning the determination of seniority following the regularization of contract employees. Although the services of such employees were regularized with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment, a controversy emerged regarding whether their seniority should be reckoned:

• From the date of regularization/confirmation; or
• From the merit position assigned at the time of their initial contractual appointment.

The employer prepared the seniority list in accordance with the original merit order. However, the same was challenged before the competent forum, giving rise to constitutional proceedings.

Legal Question

Whether employees whose services are regularized retrospectively are entitled to claim seniority based on the date of regularization, or whether their seniority must follow the original merit list prepared at the time of selection.

Arguments Advanced

On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended by Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate, that:

1. Regularization with retrospective effect confers upon the employees the status of regular employees from the date of their initial appointment.
2. Once treated as regularly appointed from the initial date, the applicable service rules governing seniority must apply in their true letter and spirit.
3. Seniority, being a condition of service, cannot be determined dehors the governing rules.
4. The merit position assigned by the Selection Authority at the time of recruitment forms the lawful basis for inter-se seniority.

Findings of the Court

After hearing the arguments, the Honourable Lahore High Court held:

• That retrospective regularization implies recognition of service from the initial date of appointment;
• That employees cannot simultaneously claim the benefit of retrospective regularization while avoiding the application of seniority rules;
• That seniority must be determined in accordance with the merit list prepared at the time of initial recruitment;
• That deviation from the original merit order would be contrary to service jurisprudence and established principles of law.

Accordingly, the Court reaffirmed that seniority shall follow merit and not the date of regularization or joining.

Legal Significance

This judgment reinforces the settled principles that:

• Seniority is a substantive civil right governed strictly by statutory service rules;
• Merit-based recruitment cannot be diluted at the stage of seniority determination;
• Retrospective regularization does not create a new hierarchy inconsistent with the original selection process.

The decision serves as an important precedent in service and constitutional matters concerning government and semi-government employees.