Justice Delayed is Justice Denied (II)

By Syed Shamsuddin

‘Grounds:

• That as narrated under ‘Facts of the Case’ in the preceding part, there has been all along the display of a great remiss and nonchalance on the part of the Respondents in the matter of dealing with the petitioners’ case which resulted into an irreparable loss to the petitioner No.01 and 02 and heart-wrenching situations to their families during the course. The exhibition of this great apathy subjected both the petitioners to an unending trail of injustice leading with bleak prospects and eventual destitution to the two families as the state of their having been ruthlessly consigned to a limbo and deliberately pushing them to cul de sac of daily-wage-earners for life by denying them the right to adjustment horizontally against regular class-iv positions say, of grade-1 post of Chowkidar/Farash or Sepoy then in B.2 with an disregard to the criterion they fulfilled over three consecutive decades – eighties, nineties and sometime afterwards that constitutes a gross human rights violation as those holding equivalent education and at par in terms of then prevalent criterion appointed to regular positions during the course earned annual increments and have now earned pensionable service liable to enjoy other perks and privileges while the petitioners are subject to deprivation.

• That both the petitioners spending lifetime in service without even a single day’s interruption in addition to their meeting the required criterion entitled to a preferential dispensation in the matter of adjustment horizontally against regular positions as afore said right from the day of their respective preliminary inductions in 1986 and 2004 onwards. But contrary to this, such class-iv category posts that were created during this period or those fell vacant from time to time during late eighties and the nineties were whimsically and rather apathetically filled by direct recruitment with an utter display of favoritism, nepotism and cronyism – all considerations extraneous to merit-based appointments.
• That the blatant disregard to the petitioners punctilious services and casting to the wind all their supplications made from time to time by sheer prevarications and bureaucratic tergiversations, has been a phenomenon underway till today, under one pretext or the other, to the detriment of the petitioners causing despondency and mental agony with the deliberate hampering the achievability of their legitimate aspirations and fulfillment of genuine longing remaining an elusive dream.

• That both the humble petitioners though meeting the basic recruitment criterion remaining in place in eighties, nineties and 2000s, for appointment to posts in the then BS-1 and 2 being 8th class pass, conforming fully to the requirements for direct recruitment during the period (1986 and 2004 respectively) besides added experience of long tireless working were kept deprived of the legitimate dispensation as narrated in the above simply because both the petitioners lacked any political influence nor did they enjoy the favors of someone in the bureaucracy.

• That the petitioners hailing from the border villages (Sust and Morkhun) in Upper Hunza (Gilgit-Baltistan) – a veritable economic backwater – were very callously made subject to mental agony with their respective families to suffer indescribably by the authorities by the Respondent No.2 formerly based in Rawalpindi.

• That the incessant heedlessness has all along been exhibited by the Respondents in dealing with the case of the petitioners during the course service as contingent-paid employees. It is worthwhile to state that the Contingent employees is a term stands coined euphemistically for those working as daily-wage-earners against a fixed remuneration that too remaining subject to periodic allocation of funds for a brief period of time. Prima facie, one fails to comprehend the rationale behind a dispensation like this when it may come to such an employment. The word ‘contingent’ for all intents and purposes, may connote and make quite inferable, the engaging or employing a person on a specific work for a definite period of time to get a job done. Such a temporary arrangement does not last long while if a job is needed perennially or indefinitely, the term ‘contingent-paid-staff’ should become redundant in such a case and must be replaced by ‘regular employee’ instead so that it does not become subject to endless manipulation as is the case with the petitioners who are ‘contingent or daily-wage employees even after rendering 32 years long service by petitioner No.1 while 14 years at a stretch by petitioner No.2. Therefore consigning them to such a vulnerable status of employment clearly impinges on and militates against the underlying principles of natural justice and constitutes a gross human rights violation.
• That given the fore-going, the petitioners’ case was required to be processed by the Respondents in an unhindered manner in the light of the cease recommendations highlighting the factual position by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.2 in consideration of and in keeping with their meeting the basic criterion for recruitment as narrated at and referred to under paras 1,2,3 and 4 above for their regularization or adjustment against the compatible posts that fell vacant in late eighties, nineties and 2000s.
• That the procrastination of the case or the gimmickry resorted by the Respondents as above eventually turned the petitioner over-aged by this time while on the other, the post they were periodically recommended for adjustment or recruitment were gradually upgraded requiring higher education.
• That the fore-going circumstances associated with the petitioners case quite explicitly call for consideration of their respective age as well educational qualification at the time of their preliminary appointments in 1986 and 2005 respectively for their retrospective appointment to B.1 and 2 posts for retrospective regularization to meet the ends of justice.
• That the Respondent No.3 all along cruelly and oppressively shelved and indifferently procrastinated the regularization/adjustment case of the petitioners over these years despite the fact that services of almost all contractual and contingent employees under Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) stand regularized in accordance with the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s decision referred to in the fore-going and by disregarding the categorical recommendations made by Respondent No.5 capriciously and arbitrarily as alluded to before at paras 1,2,3, and under ‘Facts of the Case’ above.
• That the whole gimmick resorted to by the Respondents as explained in the fore-going rendered the petitioners over-aged while the posts of Sepoys which were in B.5 were subsequently upgraded to B.5 in the first instance while of late, upgraded to B.2 requiring higher qualification. Likewise, the same may be the case with that of Chowkidar B.1. All these posts in eighties, nineties and 2000s required 8^th class pass and th petitioners were eligible for recruitment to them as the recommendations of the Respondent No.4 referred to under paras 1,2,3, and 4 above.
• That the Respondent No.3 for a long time after the Cabinet Committee’ decision under reference which was required to be implemented fairly, justly and equitably, tended to single out and shelve the petitioners’ case of regularization of service retrospectively perhaps under sheer misconceptions. This is disregarding the fact that the retrospective regularization of the petitioners requires consideration of the criterion for recruitments that was put in place and prevalent in eighties and 2000s. The petitioners otherwise being far more senior to and on the top of all the contingent employees of the Respondent No.1 whose services stand regularizes, were therefore, required to be given precedence over all of them in consideration of the length of service when it came to regularization in terms of the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s decision which called for regularization of service of those who have rendered more than a year’s service as Contingent Employees whereas the petitioner No.1 has to his credit 32 years long service while petitioner No.2 has put in 14 years at a stretch.
• That it may be reiterated here that the lackadaisical and apathetic approach adopted by the Respondents in the matter of timely adjustment of the petitioners against the vacancies during the interim period incidentally resulted into and brought about changes like upgradation of posts under reference and eventual substitution of the formerly prevalent criterion which should not have relevance to and be attracted in their case. Had they Respondent not diverted the posts towards outsiders for direct recruitments on political considerations with the suppression of material facts and zigzag motives, the present alarming situation in the petitioners case could have been averted and the petitioners would have been adjusted long ago against regular positions.
• That with the petitioners’ basic/fundamental rights having been violated so blatantly, they fall in the category of the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution which as per definition would not necessarily mean a person a strict legal rights. Even a person who was deprived of a benefit, privilege etc. by an illegal act or omission, he or she could be considered as an aggrieved person under the express Constitutional provisions.

Prayer:

In the light of the fore-going, the petitioners entreat that your kind honour may be pleased to get the petitioners’ case thoroughly investigated by the Commission of the Federal Ministry of Justice to restrain the Respondents from going ahead with their oppressiveness and gross violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights and provide swift and efficacious remedy as it is learnt that the honourable Commission adjudicates upon and resolves the problems of all those whose fundamental, human rights are trampled upon and those who cannot take ordinarily take their cases to the respective courts of law because of inability to bear expenses of engaging lawyers and meeting allied litigation expenditure due to poverty and destitution.’

It is quite lamentable that the appellants are left in lurch despite the fact that their case merits finalization in keeping with their eligibility in terms of age and educational qualifications prevalent at the time of their respective dates of first employment. The way the matter has been mishandled and misinterpreted by the authorities is clearly a classic example of gross violation of Fundamental Humans Rights and hence needs be taken cognizance of to mete out justice at this belated stage.

The writer is a Gilgi-based freelance contributor, blogger. He can be reached at Email: shamskazmi.syed@gmail.com