ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday ruled that a high court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is not available for every employment-related dispute. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi heard the appeal filed by the Chief Executive Officer of Sukkur Electric Power Company (SEPCO) against the Sindh High Court’s verdict dated September 17, 2025. The bench set aside the high court’s finding on the merits of respondent’s claim concerning effect of censure upon their promotion, and declared it be treated to be of no legal effect. However, it affirmed the conclusion of SHC that the constitutional petition was not maintainable. The FCC declared that the respondents being employees of petitioner company, whose service conditions are not governed by statutory service rules having the force of law, could not maintain constitutional/ writ petition in respect of their grievance concerning promotion or the effect of minor penalty of censure. The judgment held that the binding effect of judgments of the FCC and Supreme Court does not empower a high court to decide the merits of a dispute in proceedings in which it has itself held the writ petition to be non-maintainable. Therefore, the High Court’s observations and findings regarding the effect of censure on the respondents’ promotion cannot be sustained. According to the facts, the respondents are employees of the petitioner company, SEPCO Sukkur. During the course of service, minor penalties in the nature of censure were imposed upon them by the competent authority. The respondents claimed that the said penalties were being treated by the department as an impediment to their consideration for promotion. They; therefore, invoked constitutional jurisdiction of SHC, seeking inter alia, a declaration that penalties of censure, in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, could not adversely affect their promotions. During the proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner company, SEPCO, raised a preliminary objection that the constitutional petition was not maintainable. The objection was founded principally upon the status of SEPCO and the absence of statutory service rules governing terms and conditions of service of its employees. The High Court accepted the objection and held that the writ petition was not maintainable. However, having so concluded, the High Court proceeded to examine the controversy on its merits. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgments, it held that the penalty of censure could not constitute an impediment to the promotion of the respondents. The FCC judgment said: “It is an established principle of constitutional jurisdiction that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not available as a matter of course in respect of every dispute arising out of employment. ” “Where the relationship between an employer and its employees is essentially contractual and the employees are not governed by statutory rules or a statutory service regime, the matters relating to appointment, promotion, disciplinary proceedings and other terms and conditions of service ordinarily fall within the domain of the contract and the applicable service policy, ” it added. “Such disputes cannot, merely because the employer happens to be a public sector company or operates and performs functions of public importance, be converted into proceedings under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. ” The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely by asserting that an action of an employer is arbitrary or contrary to service policy, where underlined relationship remains non-statutory. “The distinction between an employee governed by the statutory service rules and an employee governed by a contract or non-statutory service policy is material and cannot be overlooked, ” the FCC noted. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026



