24justice.pk

Facebook-f Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube Pinterest Tiktok
Lahore High Court Judgment clarifies PESSI Service Regulations

Lahore High Court Judgment clarifies PESSI Service Regulations

/ Case Law, Information / By

Understanding the Lahore High Court Judgment on PESSI Service Regulations

 

On May 16, 2024, the Lahore High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of W.P. No. 60763/2023. This case, filed by Wajahat Hussain Hussaini and others against the Commissioner of the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI), challenged an office order dated August 31, 2023. This order amended the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008. Let’s delve into the intricacies of this case, its arguments, and the court’s decision, making it comprehensible for the general reader.

Case History

 

The petitioners, who are permanent employees of PESSI, sought to be appointed to the post of Assistant under a 25% graduate quota reserved for PESSI employees. They had completed the process for this appointment in 2018.

However, before their formal appointment orders were issued, the regulations were amended on August 31, 2023. The petitioners argued that this amendment infringed on their vested rights and sought enforcement of the original regulations, backed by an order from the Chairman of the Governing Body of PESSI dated January 9, 2023.

Petitioners’ Arguments in PESSI Service Regulation Dispute

• Petitioners’ lawyer argued they had a legitimate expectation of appointment under original regulations.
• The chairman’s previous decision to enforce the original regulations should be maintained.

•  Changes to regulations went beyond the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965.

• Amending regulations violated petitioners’ accrued rights.
• Case of Nadeem Zuberi vs. Civil Aviation Authority cited to support enforceability of notified regulations.

 Respondents’ Counterarguments

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Mr. Muhammad Ali Farooq, argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioners were seeking enforcement of non-statutory regulations. They maintained that the Governing Body of PESSI had lawfully amended the regulations and that no vested rights had accrued to the petitioners before the amendment.

Court’s Analysis
  • Court’s Focus Justice Sheikh examined if the PESSI regulations were enforceable by the court (i.e., statutory).
  • Power to Make Rules The court analyzed sections 79 and 80 of the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance.
    • Section 79: Provincial Government can make rules.
    • Section 80: Governing Body can make regulations.
  • Key Framed Question Do Governing Body regulations have the force of law (statutory)?
  • Precedents Cited The court referred to past rulings where regulations made by governing bodies (not the government) were deemed non-statutory. (e.g., National Data and Registration Authority Ordinance)
  • Court’s Conclusion Since the PESSI regulations were made by the Governing Body, not the government, they were deemed non-statutory.
Court Decision

Based on the legal framework and precedents, the court concluded that the regulations in question were non-statutory. Therefore, the petition for their enforcement was not maintainable. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the Governing Body had the authority to amend the regulations. This authority is granted by section 80(2)(viii) and (x) of the Ordinance. Since the petitioners were never formally appointed under the un-amended regulations, they had no vested rights to claim.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as both non-maintainable and meritless.

Implications and Takeaways

This judgment underscores a critical aspect of administrative law: the distinction between statutory and non-statutory regulations. For regulations to be enforceable through a constitutional petition, they must be framed by the government and have the force of law. PESSI Service Regulations made by a governing body, without government approval, do not hold the same legal status.

For employees and employers within institutions like PESSI, this case highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework governing appointments. It also emphasizes the limits of vested rights. Amendments to regulations by an authorized governing body, if within their jurisdiction, are legitimate and binding unless proven otherwise.

Contact Us

The Lahore High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 60763/2023 serves as a pivotal reference for cases involving the enforcement of service regulations. It clarifies the legal standing of regulations made by governing bodies versus those made by the government.

For the petitioners, while the outcome may seem unfavorable, it reinforces the principle that only statutory regulations can be enforced through constitutional petitions. This ensures that legal processes remain clear and consistent. Below is the full citation in PDF format for your reference.

2024LHC2239

Our panel of skilled Lawyers in Pakistan specializes in business cases in Pakistan and offers personalized advice and robust legal solutions.

  • AI Legal Site: For general information, visit 24Justice.com – Pakistan’s First Legal AI Site.
  • Personalized Assistance: For more specific queries or legal representation, reach out to us:
    • Call: 0092 308 5510031
    • WhatsApp: 0092 308 5510031
  • Contact Form: Prefer writing? Fill out our contact form below, and we’ll respond promptly.