ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that the claim of counting the period of contract service together with regular service for the purpose of qualifying for promotion is not maintainable.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbassi and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, announced a detailed judgement in a service matter titled ‘Muhammad Saleem Sheikh and Syed Nadeem Shah versus Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh’.
The petitioners, Muhammad Saleem Sheikh and Syed Nadeem Shah, had filed an appeal against the judgement passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal (SST) at Karachi.
The court, after hearing the case on December 17, 2025, dismissed both appeals in a short order, holding that it did not find any irregularity, impropriety, or perversity in the SST judgement.
The appellant contended before the SST that his seniority for promotion should include his contract service in the department and his previous service in Wapda, as was done for his colleague, Syed Nadeem Shah (Respondent No 6).
Despite seeking similar treatment through a representation, no decision was made within the statutory 90 days. He therefore approached the SST, but his appeal was dismissed.
In its 17-page detailed judgement, authored by Justice Mazhar, the court held that after due consideration, the SST rightly exercised its jurisdiction and held that contract service is excluded from the definition of a civil servant. The prayer for counting contract service together with regular service for the purpose of qualifying length of service for promotion was rejected.
However, the court noted that while drawing an analogy from the policy letter issued by the Sindh finance secretary to all administrative secretaries during 1986, the SST held that regular service in the federal government can be tagged with regular service in the province only for the purpose of monetary benefits like move-over, pension and gratuity. It further held that there should be no break in service and that service in the federal government has been counted towards fixation of pay in the new service of the provincial government department.
“Though there has been a lot of water under the bridge and much time has passed in the protracted litigation, and we were informed during the course of hearing that by efflux of time, both the appellants before us have already been promoted in BPS-20, however, we have discussed in detail the legal provisions and implications regarding the status of ad hoc, acting charge and contractual employment in support of the relevant provisions of statutes and enabling rules,” said the apex court judgement.
The court noted that the counsel for the appellant (Syed Nadeem Shah) cited the dictum laid down in the case of ‘Federation of Pakistan versus Raiz Khan’ (1993 SCMR 609), which, in their considered view, does not pertain to accounting for the period of service rendered on a contractual basis at the time of regularisation of service. Instead, it was directly focused on the period of ad hoc service followed by regular service in the same scale for counting towards the length of service prescribed for promotion or move-over to the next higher scale.
“It was further held that seniority in a post, service, or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted would take effect from the date of regular appointment to that post, and for the purpose of seniority in a particular grade, regular appointment is the determining factor,” it said.
The detailed judgement noted that the counsel for the appellant in C A No 89-K/2023 and for respondent No 6 in C A No 88/2023 argued that the SST judgement is violative of Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973. It was further contended that the jurisdiction of the tribunal can only be invoked by an aggrieved civil servant against a final order, whether original or appellate.
Similarly, according to the judgement, the counsel for the respondent (Muhammad Idrees Khoso) fully supported the SST judgement and added that the period rendered on a contract basis cannot be counted in regular service for promotion or seniority.
Likewise, the apex court judgement noted that the Sindh additional advocate general argued that the SST correctly held that ad hoc service counts as civil service, but contract service does not count towards qualifying service for promotion. He contended that contract employees are excluded from the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that even regular service in corporations or autonomous bodies is distinct from civil service.
“Since we did not find any irregularity, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned SST, therefore we dismissed both the appeals vide our short order dated 17.12.2025 and above are the reasons,” the detailed judgement concluded.
