Sacked Employees: FCC Orders Regular Status After Employers Fail to Hold Tests

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Federal Constitutional Court has directed that petitioners covered by the sacked-employees restoration litigation be treated as unconditional regularly appointed beneficiary employees after their employers failed to arrange required tests. Employees who were never called for an examination, and had not refused one, could not bear the consequences of institutional inaction. Judgment, page 7

Justice Ali Baqar Najafi wrote for a bench headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and also including Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. The judgment was uploaded to the FCC collection on 30 October 2026. It records hearings on 30 and 31 July 2026; its pronouncement line does not state a separate date. Judgment, page 1

The 2021 restoration conditions

The proceedings sought implementation of the Supreme Court’s 17 December 2021 review decision following invalidation of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010. That decision extended judicial protection to specified beneficiaries. Where a post had required an aptitude, scholastic or skill test at the relevant time, the detailed reasons required a relevant test through the Federal Public Service Commission within three months of receipt of the judgment. Judgment, page 2

The earlier directions distinguished posts that had not required such testing. They also preserved exclusions for specified grounds of initial termination, including misconduct and corruption, where the termination had not finally been set aside by a court. The FCC was enforcing that judicial framework, rather than making the invalidated statute operative again. Judgment, page 3

The institutions never arranged the examinations

Neither FPSC nor the departments had put the restored employees through the required tests. Departments suggested that employees had not volunteered. FPSC said departmental requisitions were needed and that it could not simply hold the examinations on its own, particularly in light of the employers’ recruitment arrangements. Judgment, page 7

The employees’ answer was practical. They could not prepare their own examination papers or walk into an examination that had never been scheduled. Employers had to invite them to the relevant test at an identified time and place. The FCC accepted that an unheld examination was not a failure by employees who had never been instructed to attend and had not declined to do so. Judgment, page 7

The consequences of delay belonged to the employers

The Court considered the changes in the employees’ position: appointment, termination, reinstatement and subsequent invalidation of the statutory scheme. It also considered their substantial period of service. Against that background, institutional inaction could not be used to deny the benefit of the restoration decision. Judgment, page 5

It treated the test conditions, on these facts, as waived or diluted through the departments’ delay and lethargy. That conclusion depended on responsibility for the unheld tests and the absence of refusal by the petitioners. It does not establish that every public employee may ignore an examination requirement or that delay automatically validates an unlawful appointment. Judgment, page 8

The judgment also recognized entitlement to the benefits of retired regular employees for those reaching superannuation while continuing in service. Applying that direction still requires the individual’s service record and beneficiary status. Judgment, page 8

Compliance, without a contempt sentence

The bench criticized departmental inaction and emphasized the constitutional obligation to implement judicial decisions. Its discussion of the earlier Supreme Court order concerned the duty to obey that order. Departments could not treat the relief as an administrative option. Judgment, page 9

The Court nevertheless exercised restraint. It disposed of the connected cases with directions to implement the detailed reasons in the review decision and consider the petitioners unconditional regularly appointed beneficiary employees. It did not impose a contempt sentence. Judgment, page 10

The ruling is significant where the benefit of the 2021 judgment remained unresolved because the responsible institutions never offered the required tests. Its operative protection concerns the beneficiary petitioners. A claim by another employee requires examination of eligibility, the earlier order, the service history and any applicable exclusion; the decision is not a new general regularization policy. Judgment, page 10

Frequently asked questions

Did the FCC excuse employees who refused a properly arranged test?

That was not this case. The Court relied on the employees having never been called for the required tests and not having refused to appear. Judgment, page 7.

Who had to arrange the tests?

The employers. Employees could not organize examinations themselves or volunteer into an FPSC examination that had never been arranged for them. Judgment, page 7.

Was the 2010 reinstatement Act revived?

No. The case concerned implementation of relief under the 2021 review judgment after invalidation of the Act. The direction concerned the beneficiary petitioners. Judgment, page 5.

Was anyone sentenced for contempt?

No contempt sentence appears in the operative order. The Court criticized the institutional inaction, exercised restraint and directed compliance. Judgment, page 9.

What about petitioners who retired while serving?

The Court recognized entitlement to benefits of retired regular employees for those reaching superannuation while serving. Individual implementation depends on beneficiary status and the service record. Judgment, page 8.

Sources and complete judgment

• Read the full judgment.
• Download judgment PDF.
• Judgment particulars and searchable summary.
• Official court PDF.
• Federal Constitutional Court judgment collection.