Supreme Court: Even Disputed Seniority Cannot Be Changed Without a Hearing

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

Supreme Court requires hearing before adverse seniority revision

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has recalled an earlier dismissal of police officers’ petitions after finding that their seniority had been disturbed without giving them a hearing. The department must now hear the officers and other affected persons and issue a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

The approved-for-reporting judgment concerns SIP Mukhtiyar Ali Thebo etc. v. Province of Sindh and others, Civil Review Petitions Nos. 521–541 and 764–782 of 2024. Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Musarrat Hilali and Shahid Bilal Hassan constituted the Bench. Justice Mazhar authored the decision.

The judgment is dated 9 June 2026. The Supreme Court’s latest-judgments record lists it as uploaded on 9 October 2026. The upload date is not the date on which the Court decided the case.

The Court’s relief was procedural and limited to the first set of petitioners identified in the earlier order. It did not declare their claimed seniority finally correct, grant promotion or immediately revive the 2015 seniority list.

Officers challenged withdrawal of assigned seniority

The petitioners complained that they had been recommended as senior-most Sub-Inspectors for admission to List F for promotion to Inspector. They challenged the withdrawal of their assigned seniority and the subsequent list of 18 November 2020. Their case relied on the seniority position assigned in 2015.

The Sindh Service Tribunal dismissed their service appeals on 30 November 2023. On 4 April 2024, a two-member Supreme Court Bench dismissed their civil petitions and refused leave. That order noted that the first set had been appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors in 2010 and confirmed in 2014 but claimed seniority from 1996. It found no substantial question of law of public importance warranting interference.

The review petitions were brought under Article 188 of the Constitution. As the judges who decided the earlier petitions had retired, the reviews were heard by the three-member Bench named above.

Department conceded that no hearing had been given

Counsel for the officers argued that their earlier seniority had been revised without notice or an opportunity to explain their position. The Additional Advocate General, Sindh, disputed their entitlement to the ante-dated seniority but conceded that no hearing had been afforded before the revision.

In paragraph 5, the Supreme Court treated that omission as a violation of natural justice, due process and Article 10A of the Constitution. It found that this material aspect had escaped the earlier Bench’s attention and amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court therefore intervened in review. Its reasoning does not make review a general opportunity to argue an unsuccessful case again. It identifies a particular, admitted procedural omission which had not been considered in the earlier decision.

Even allegedly incorrect seniority requires a fair process

Paragraph 6 describes seniority as a valuable service interest affecting career progression. The Court expressly says that seniority does not guarantee automatic promotion.

It further holds that even where an assigned seniority position is considered contrary to service rules, an employer cannot disturb it unilaterally without confronting the affected employee and giving a fair opportunity of hearing. The requirement to hear the employee does not make an unlawful seniority position immune from correction. The department must decide entitlement according to the applicable law and rules after hearing the affected persons.

The Court relied on Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh and others v. Raj Kumar Lohana and others, 2026 SCMR 278. As discussed in paragraph 7, revision of seniority must involve the persons likely to be adversely affected. Service length and career expectations must be considered within the statutory framework, rather than treated as substitutes for it.

Earlier order recalled for an overlooked material error

Paragraphs 8–9 address the corrective purpose of review jurisdiction. The Court referred to Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Tax House, Karachi v. M/s MSC Switzerland Geneva and others, 2023 SCMR 1011 = 2023 SCP 150, on errors apparent on the record and non-consideration of material pleas.

Here, the finding was grounded in the admitted absence of a hearing. The judgment does not reopen the original petitions merely because another Bench might assess the seniority claim differently. It corrects the failure to consider a constitutional and procedural safeguard material to the dispute.

The reported authorities above are identified as cited and discussed in this judgment. Their complete facts and the wider operation of their holdings are not independently restated here.

Department directed to hear all affected persons

In paragraph 10, the Supreme Court recalled its order of 4 April 2024, restored the civil petitions to their original numbers, converted them into appeals and partially allowed them. It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment only to the extent of the first set of petitioners identified in the earlier order.

The department must give the petitioners and other affected persons an adequate hearing, consider their respective contentions and pass a speaking order. A speaking order is a decision explaining its reasons, rather than merely announcing a result.

If the officers’ objections are found substantial and the revision is found unlawful and unjust, a fresh seniority list must be compiled and issued within two months from receipt of the judgment. The direction is conditional. It is not an unconditional order to restore the 2015 list, and the period does not run from the date this report is published.

Until then, the Court directed maintenance of the status quo concerning the list dated 18 November 2020 for the first set of petitioners. The interim position therefore concerns the 2020 list while the hearing and decision process is completed.

What the decision changes

The officers obtained a fresh departmental hearing and a reasoned determination, with other affected employees also entitled to be heard. Whether a revised list is ultimately required depends on that determination.

The decision reinforces the distinction between correcting a seniority position and correcting it lawfully. An allegation that earlier seniority was wrongly assigned does not remove the need for due process. Conversely, the right to a hearing does not settle the substantive claim to a particular position or promotion.

For related service-law discussion, see new service rules and settled seniority and the site’s Service Law articles.

Judgment particulars and sources

• Case: SIP Mukhtiyar Ali Thebo etc. v. Province of Sindh and others.
• Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan, Review Jurisdiction.
• Proceedings: Civil Review Petitions Nos. 521–541 and 764–782 of 2024, arising from the connected CPLA batches identified in the judgment.
• Bench: Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Musarrat Hilali and Shahid Bilal Hassan.
• Author: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
• Hearing and decision: 9 June 2026.
• Official upload date: 9 October 2026.
• Reporting status: approved for reporting; the supplied PDF does not state a reporter citation.
• Result: earlier Supreme Court order recalled; civil petitions restored, converted into appeals and partially allowed; departmental hearing and speaking order directed for the first set.

The download reproduces the supplied judgment unchanged. The Supreme Court’s official latest-judgments record lists C.R.P. 521/2024 and links the court-hosted PDF. The direct court PDF returned an access restriction during verification; the download hosted with this report remains available. The court’s judgment search provides an additional official record route.