Contract Employees Cannot Claim For Regularization

Contract Employees Cannot Claim For Regularization

In a recent judicial proceeding, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a crucial issue related to employment rights and contractual obligations. The case revolved around the demand for regularization by an assistant professor, Dr. Shiroli Khan, who was appointed under the disabled quota at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Sheringal Dir Bala. Let’s delve into the details of this case and its implications.

Dr. Shiroli Khan, an assistant professor, was recruited on the disabled quota at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Sheringal Dir Bala back in May 2014. Over the years, he witnessed several colleagues being regularized in their positions. Feeling that his employment status was left in limbo, Dr. Khan sought legal recourse to secure permanent employment.


Contract Employees Regularization Claim Legal Argument


Dr. Khan’s legal representative, Mir Amukal, argued that as he had been serving in an ad hoc capacity since 2014 and considering that others in similar situations were being regularized, his client deserved the same treatment. Mir Amukal asserted that Dr. Khan should be given a permanent position without the need for an official advertisement or recruitment process.


Read More:  Employees Provident Fund Organization in Pakistan


Supreme Court’s Verdict:

A three-member bench, presided over by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, considered the petition. They arrived at several crucial decisions:

  1. Contract Employees and Regularization: The court ruled that a contract employee does not have an automatic right to demand regularization of their employment. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the terms and conditions of one’s employment contract.
  2. Clause 12 of the Contract: The court recognized that the university had fulfilled its obligations as per Clause 12 of Dr. Khan’s contract. This clause likely outlines the terms and conditions related to his employment, which the court found to be satisfactory.
  3. Advertisement and Recruitment: Chief Justice Bandial clarified that the court could not direct the university to issue an advertisement for the position of assistant professor. This decision highlights the principle that recruitment should follow a fair and standardized process.
  4. Equal Treatment: Importantly, the court acknowledged Dr. Khan’s concerns but maintained that he should follow the due process for independent employment, just as others have. This reaffirms the principle of equal treatment under the law.


Read More: MDCAT Results 2023 Highest Score


Conclusion:

The court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding one’s employment contract and the rights and obligations it entails. It also emphasizes the need for fairness and consistency in recruitment processes. Dr. Khan, like any other individual seeking permanent employment, should pursue his goal through established procedures.

In conclusion, this case highlights the complex interplay between employment contracts, individual rights, and institutional obligations. It serves as a valuable lesson for individuals seeking job security and underscores the role of the judiciary in upholding the principles of fairness and equality in employment matters.

Official Website

Check Now

Employees News Portal Click Here

Leave a Comment