The case of late Dostan Ali and Shamsher Ali stands as a heart-rending illustration of how bureaucratic apathy and administrative nonchalance can erode the very essence of justice. It is a story of two humble men from the remote border villages of Sust and Morkhun in Upper Hunza, Gilgit-Baltistan, who devoted the best years of their lives in loyal and uninterrupted service to a government formation — only to be denied their fundamental rights and consigned to a lifetime of uncertainty and deprivation.
A Lifetime of Service Without Recognition
Late Dostan Ali, now deceased, rendered thirty-seven years of continuous and dedicated service until his passing about three years ago. His colleague, Shamsher Ali, continues in service to this day, having completed twenty-one years without a single day’s break. Both men began their employment in 1986 and 2004 respectively, meeting the then-prevailing recruitment criteria for Class-IV positions — posts such as Chowkidar, Farash, or Sepoy (then in BPS-1 and BPS-2) which required a minimum qualification of being 8th class pass.
Despite fulfilling these requirements and performing their duties with remarkable diligence, neither was ever regularized or adjusted against compatible regular positions. Instead, their services were retained under the euphemistic title of “Contingent Paid Staff” — a term that, in practice, masked a system of exploitation and disregard for human dignity. They continued as daily-wage earners, subject to temporary fund allocations and bureaucratic whims, year after year, decade after decade.
It becomes abundantly clear from the foregoing that both affected individuals — having fulfilled all terms and conditions for their appointment to compatible Grade-1 posts decades ago in their youth — continued serving in contingent-paid positions with the sincere belief that their dedicated and highly assiduous service would eventually earn them regular appointments. However, the concerned departmental authorities subjected them to utter neglect as the years passed. Posts in Grade-1 and Grade-2 created or vacated during the intervening years were apathetically filled through direct recruitment of outsiders, with complete disregard for the legitimate claims of these long-serving employees.
One significant fact that must not go unnoticed is that the department consistently retained their services uninterruptedly for decades — a tacit admission of their indispensability and the perennial nature of their work. Ironically, while their labor was deemed essential, they were denied the dignity of regular positions and pensionary benefits, a contradiction that underscores the insensitivity and injustice of the entire dispensation.
A Question of Conscience
How come that a dispensation like this can be doled out to one who spent his entire youth in dedicated service to a government formation — with unfaltering loyalty, assiduity, and sincerity — for decades without any break? How can it be justified that such individuals were denied the basic right to regular employment and pensionary benefits, despite meeting the requisite standards and rendering lifelong service?
What moral or legal reasoning can ever defend such callous disregard for human worth and lifelong dedication? If the government needed their services for nearly four decades in the case of Dostan Ali, and over two decades in the case of Shamsher Ali, what prevented the authorities from acknowledging them as regular employees long ago? Why were they not adjusted against compatible posts, which remained available throughout these years — positions that were instead filled through direct recruitment driven by favoritism, nepotism, and political influence?
These questions strike at the very heart of conscience. They expose not merely administrative negligence but a moral collapse, a deep-seated insensitivity that reduced loyal human service to expendable labor. Such denial of regularization is not merely a lapse of governance; it is an affront to human dignity, a violation of constitutional rights, and a betrayal of the principles of fairness and equity upon which public institutions ought to stand.
Bureaucratic Apathy and Institutional Neglect
Throughout the late eighties, nineties, and 2000s, numerous Class-IV posts fell vacant or were newly created under the Respondents’ departments. Yet, instead of adjusting long-serving contingent employees like Dostan and Shamsher, these vacancies were arbitrarily diverted to outsiders through direct recruitment, a process tainted by extraneous considerations. Such acts demonstrated a wilful disregard for merit, seniority, and human compassion.
Repeated recommendations from Respondent No.4 urging the regularization of these petitioners were ignored by Respondent No.2 and No.3, who continued to exhibit habitual procrastination and tergiversation. Over time, the posts in question were upgraded, and the educational requirements raised, effectively rendering the petitioners over-aged and technically ineligible — a condition created entirely by official inaction.
The Respondents’ failure to process the petitioners’ legitimate claims, despite their eligibility and continuous service, represents a gross miscarriage of administrative justice. Their continued exploitation under the pretext of “contingent employment” — despite the perennial nature of their duties — blatantly militates against the principles of natural justice and constitutes a violation of human rights in the purest sense.
Human Rights and Constitutional Dimensions
Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, a person deprived of a legitimate benefit, privilege, or entitlement due to an illegal act or omission is considered an “aggrieved person.” Both petitioners clearly fall within this definition. The denial of their regularization, despite decades of unbroken service, deprived them of pensionable rights, annual increments, and job security — benefits that their contemporaries, holding identical qualifications, have long enjoyed.
The Cabinet Sub-Committee’s decision directing the regularization of all contractual and contingent employees who rendered over a year’s service was implemented across various departments. Yet, the case of these two individuals — who rendered thirty-seven and twenty-one years respectively — was arbitrarily excluded, without reason or justification. Such selective treatment is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and deeply inhumane.
The late Dostan Ali, after a lifetime of service, passed away unrewarded, his family left in destitution — a victim of bureaucratic heartlessness. His colleague, Shamsher Ali, continues in the same uncertain position, witnessing the erosion of hope and faith in a system that has repeatedly failed to honor its moral and legal obligations.
A Call for Posthumous Justice and Immediate Rectification
In the light of the foregoing, it is imperative that the competent authorities take cognizance of this case in the spirit of justice and humanity. The matter deserves thorough investigation and redressal through the Federal Ministry of Justice’s Human Rights Commission, with directives to:
-
Posthumously regularize late Dostan Ali’s service, ensuring that his bereaved family receives all pensionary and financial benefits due for his thirty-seven years of loyal service.
-
Immediately regularize the service of Shamsher Ali, granting him due recognition, job security, and all accompanying rights and benefits.
-
Hold accountable those officials whose persistent negligence, favoritism, and arbitrary conduct led to this prolonged injustice.
It is quite lamentable that the petitioners — one deceased, the other still serving — have been left in the lurch, despite their case being fully meritorious in terms of age, qualification, and service record. The mishandling and misinterpretation of their cases represent a classic example of systemic insensitivity, demanding moral and legal redress even at this belated stage.
Conclusion
The story of Dostan Ali and Shamsher Ali is not merely about two individuals — it reflects a wider tragedy within the governance fabric, where loyalty, perseverance, and honesty often go unrewarded. When the state fails to protect those who serve it with faith and dedication, it undermines its own moral foundation. The denial of justice to these two humble men — one now gone, the other still waiting — is a stain on administrative conscience that can only be erased through swift and meaningful redress.
Comments