ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has directed Prime Minister’s Office and several other departments to individually re-examine cases of the employees who were denied time-scale promotions, ruling that policy changes cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of those who had fulfilled the required criteria.

The SC bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and also comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, issued these directives while disposing of a set of over 23 civil petitions filed by different government departments, including PM’s Office, Establishment Division, Ministry of Finance and the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and Ministry of Maritime Affairs.

The dispute revolved around the applicability of several Office Memorandums (OMs) related to time-scale promotions issued from time to time.

The directions were issued after all the counsel arguing the matter reached an amicable modality to resolve the controversy.

PM Office, Establishment Division and other depts told to re-examine employees’ cases

The initial criteria for time-scale promotions were laid down in the primary OM, issued on Dec 23, 2011, which were modified four years later and then further changed on March 31, 2021. The controversy deepened on May 9, 2025 when yet another OM notified that the 2015 OM had been withdrawn.

Authored by Justice Mazhar, an eight-page judgment emphasised that once a beneficial OM was issued by the competent authority, it was then their responsibility to implement such an OM in letter and spirit, without providing any cause of complaint to the employees.

The benefits mentioned in the OMs should have been allowed to all the eligible employees across the board, but subject to the fulfilment of the conditions and the criteria laid down for extending any such benefit by means of these OMs.

Justice Mazhar explained in the judgment that it was a well-settled exposition of law that an executive notification or subordinate legislation operates prospectively and cannot have retrospective effect. It declared that the OMs curtailing the vested rights or accrued benefits could not operate backward, but prospectively.

The primary reason to reject retroactive effect is to protect vested rights if accrued in favour of the respondents during the currency of prevailing OMs and variation in the canons cannot upset the rights if legally built up before the modification or changing the yardsticks, the judgment observed.

It noted that the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation was that an executive order or notification could not take away vested, accrued, or substantive rights that individuals already possessed before the notification was issued.

The substantive rights and liabilities were shaped and mature under the law applicable at that particular and identifiable time which cannot be altered with retrospective effect under the doctrine of certainty and predictability, the judgment observed.

When public authorities/departments create a legitimate expectation through consistent past practice or policy, it must not be changed abruptly without lawful justification or exigency or to punish or penalise individuals for actions that were perfectly lawful when they performed them, Justice Mazhar observed.

Additional Attorney General Barrister Umar Aslam agreed earlier at the hearing that in view of all OMs, the departments concerned would reconsider and re-examine the cases of all the respondents individually to ascertain and decide whether they satisfy the criteria laid down in the OMs, including the length of service for the grant of time-scale promotions.

If they fulfilled the criteria, time-scale promotions would be granted to them, he assured the court. It was also agreed during the proceedings that the OMs, including those issued on March 31, 2021 and May 9, 2025, would not be construed to have any retrospective effect.

The AAG and the officers present in court also assured the court that within three months, the entire exercise would be completed and speaking orders would be communicated to the respondents individually, the judgement noted.

Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2026