' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.--- The petitioners were working as Area Managers with the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan at its zonal office at Sialkot. Their appointment as Area Manager was initially on probation for a period of six months whereafter it was liable to be converted to confirmation subject to qualifying certain exams and meeting targets given by the Management from time to time. At the very outset it may be observed that it is not the case of either of the parties that the petitioners did not qualify the requisite exams. Further their services were terminated through termination letters of various dates between August 31, 1997 to June 15, 1998.
Second ground was that they had failed to meet the requisite targets.
2. In 2009, the President of Pakistan promulgated The Sacked Employees (Re-instatement)
Ordinance, 2010. The preamble of the Ordinance stated that it was being promulgated to provide relief to the persons who were appointed in a corporation service or autonomous or semi- autonomous bodies or in Government service during the period from the 1-11-1993 to 30-11-1996 and were dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from 1-11-1996 to 31-12- 1998. Admittedly, the petitioners fall in the aforesaid category. Section 3 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides as follows:---
(3) Reinstatement of Employees.--- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, judgment of any Tribunal or a Court including the Supreme Court and the High Court, contract or terms and conditions of service, all persons appointed in corporation or Government service, during the period from the 1st day of November, 1993 to the 30th day of November, 1996 (both days inclusive) and dismissed, removed, terminated or given forced golden handshake during the period from the 1st day of November, 1996 to the 31st day of December, 1998 (both days inclusive) shall be reinstated immediately in service on one scale higher to their substantive scale of the post at the time of termination of service and report for duty to their respective departments or organizations."
3. The petitioners submitted applications seeking re-instatement in terms of section 3 above.
However, the applications moved by the petitioners have neither been processed nor have they been re-instated into service. In this regard the learned counsel has drawn my attention to a notice published by the respondent in daily Nawa-i-Waqt dated 6-6-2009, in which the names of 36 individuals were published. It was stated that State Life insurance Corporation of Pakistan had commenced re-instatement of trainee executives, whose services have been terminated and the persons named in the advertisement were directed to contact the General Manager (P&GS), Principle Office State Life Building No,9 Dr. Ziauddin Ahmad Road, Karachi in this regard.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a number of similarly placed employees have been re-instated but the petitioners have been left out of the process.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the first place the petition is not competent because the petitioners have made a misstatement in the prayer of the petition. He further submits that the petitioners were Area Managers and their jobs were dependent upon meeting certain targets to them. In view of the fact that they had failed to meet the targets, their services had rightly been terminated. He adds that the remedy of the petitioners lies before the cabinet committee before whom a large number of their colleagues had agitated the matter and received relief.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Ordinance was initially promulgated in the year, 2009. It has been re-promulgated a number of times and the latest version is the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2010, which still holds the field. The petitioners filed their applications under section 3 of the Ordinance within time, they were justified in expecting that their applications will be duly processed and they will be treated in accordance with law. It is an admitted position that similarly placed employees have either been re-instated by the respondent or by the cabinet committee set up in this regard. A perusal of the Ordinance, specially, section 3 indicates that no distinction has been created between the employees who were terminated for cause and those whose services were terminated without cause. This relevant provision only provides a time period within which if an employee was appointed and thereafter terminated for any reason including dismissal, removal, termination or having been given golden hand shake, is entitled to reinstatement in service on one scale higher to his substantive scale of the posting at the time of termination of services. I, therefore, do not find myself in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the employment of the petitioners having been terminated on account of their inability to meet the targets disentitles them to avail the benefit of section 3. There is material on record to indicate that the petitioners have been discriminated against. Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees equality before the law and non-discrimination between equally placed person's. I find that despite being entitled to the benefit of section 3, the petitioners have been discriminated against without lawful reason, which is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I, therefore, hold that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of section 3 of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2010, as other similarly placed employees of the respondent corporation who have been reinstated. A policy of pick and choose on the part of the State functionaries is an anathema to the right of equal treatment and nondiscrimination, guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution. The respondents are accordingly directed to process the applications of the petitioners on non-discriminatory basis, strictly in accordance with law and provide them such benefits, to which they are entitled in terms of the Ordinance.