livelawpk.com - The Rights Accrued before the Rule’s Omission remain ---

The Rights Accrued before the Rule’s Omission remain enforceable and cannot be invalidated retrospectively unless explicitly barred by Law --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

1 week, 2 days
42

The Rights Accrued before the Rule’s Omission remain enforceable and cannot be invalidated retrospectively unless explicitly barred by Law --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 30-12-2024: In a significant judgment, the Lahore High Court has reaffirmed that rights accrued under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 remain enforceable despite the rule’s omission by notification on 24th July 2024. The decision emphasizes the protection of accrued rights and provides clarity on the application of retrospective judicial rulings.

The Court was hearing [W.P. No. 62298/2024], filed by petitioners seeking consideration for appointments under Rule 17-A, which provided employment opportunities for dependents of deceased or incapacitated Civil Servants. The omission of this rule had led to disputes regarding its applicability to cases where rights had already accrued.

The Court upheld that rights accrued before the rule’s omission cannot be invalidated retrospectively unless explicitly barred by law. The Judicial declarations on laws deemed unconstitutional apply prospectively, ensuring no disruption to previously established rights or appointments. The familial preference in employment violates the Constitution’s principles of equality and merit-based governance under Articles 25 and 27. The Courts avoid issuing declarations on laws that are no longer in force.

The Court relied on several key precedents, including:

“General Post Office, Islamabad & others Vs. Muhammad Jalal” (Civil Petition No. 3390/2021), where policies favoring familial appointments were declared unconstitutional.
Other landmark cases like Pir Bakhsh (PLD 1987 SC 145) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch (2015 SCMR 456) were cited to underline the principles of non-retroactivity and merit-based appointments.

The Court directed relevant authorities to consider petitioners’ claims for appointments under Rule 17-A, provided such claims were filed within a reasonable timeframe. The judgment clarified that Rule 17-A’s omission does not invalidate rights accrued before its removal.