2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.

By way of this single judgment, I intend to decide all the captioned writ petitions having a common question of law and facts.

2. In all these petitions, the petitioners have called into question the office order directing the disengagement of employees who have completed the prescribed five year period under the Death Compensation Package.

3. Facts leading to filing these petitions are that all the petitioners were appointed on contract against different posts in the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) under a compensation package for a period of five years (extendable). Upon completion of the initial five years, petitioners' contracts were extended for a further term. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned office memorandum for the disengagement of services of all employees appointed under the Death Compensation Package. Hence, these petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned office memorandum is in violation of instructions contained in letter dated 26.01.2017, and policy of the Federal Government, which has allowed regular appointments instead of contract appointment; that the rules of respondent No. 2 are statutory in nature as respondent No.2 is under the control of respondent No.1/Federal Government; that respondent No.2 is established under section 3 of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Ordinance, 1965, which provides power for making rules and regulations; that respondent No. 3 had announced the "Assistance Package for families of Government Employees who die in service" vide O.M. dated 13.06.2006, which was amended from time to time, the same has allowed regular appointment instead of contract appointment; that the petitioners are entitled for regular appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases reported as 2017 SCMR 1979, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 541, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1118, 2014 SCMR 1573, and 2021 PLC

596. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no need for statutory rules. In this regard, he has placed his reliance on PLD 2016 SC 377.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/PAEC, assisted by the learned AAG, contends that all the petitioners were employed on contract under the Death Compensation Package by invoking Rule 59 of the National Command Authority Employees Service Rules, 2011; that there is no vested right of the petitioners being contractual employees. Learned counsel further submits that though PAEC was created under the provisions of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Ordinance, 1965, but after the promulgation of National Command Authority Act, 2010, PAEC was declared as strategic organization under section 2(d) of the NCA Act, 2010; that service rules of the NCA are non-statutory, therefore, all these petitions are not maintainable; that impugned O.M is a policy decision of the authority, which cannot be interfered. Learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1309, PLD 1975 SC 50, 1990 SCMR 1187, 2021 SCMR 1995, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1118.

6. Arguments by learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

7. The petitioners, engaged by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission under contracts executed pursuant to Rule 59a of the NCA Employees Service Rules, 2011, have sought relief in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court relating to the cessation of their contractual employment and claimed entitlement to certain benefits and protections under notifications issued by the Establishment Division.

8. The foundational dispute concerns the legal character of the petitioners' employment and the statutory regime governing strategic organizations after the promulgation of the National Command Authority Act 2010. The material on record shows that each petitioner was appointed under a distinct contractual agreement, which expressly subjected their service conditions to the NCA ESR, 2011. These rules were framed by the NCA pursuant to its powers under the NCA Act, 2010. The petitioners' service letters, employment terms, allowances, leave rules, medical entitlements, disciplinary, framework, and security clearance requirements were all governed by the NCA ESR, 2011, not by the Civil Servants Act or the PAEC Ordinance, 1965.

9. The promulgation of the National Command Authority Act, 2010, fundamentally altered the legal landscape governing strategic organizations, including the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. Section 21 of the Act contains an overriding clause, expressly providing that the provisions of the NCA Act shall prevail over all other laws for the time being in force, including the PAEC Ordinance, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder. Furthermore, under section 9 of the Act, all employees serving in strategic organizations are statutorily transposed to the NCA, while section 7 vests exclusive authority in the NCA to regulate matters of appointment, removal, promotion, transfer, classification, discipline, and all ancillary service matters. In this statutory scheme, the PAEC Ordinance, 1965, to the extent it pertains to service governance, stands impliedly repealed and rendered ineffective, as its provisions cannot coexist with the overriding and comprehensive framework of the NCA Act, 2010. This interpretation is reinforced by judicial precedent holding that where a later statute contains a non obstante clause and occupies the entire field, earlier enactments must yield accordingly.

10. It is further evident that after the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in Shafique Ahmed Khan v. NESCOM (PLD 2016 SC 377), Parliament enacted the NCA Amendment Act, 2016. Through this amendment, a proviso was inserted into section 15 of the NCA Act, clarifying that rules, instructions, and orders relating to employees of strategic organizations shall be treated as non-statutory unless approved by the Federal Government and published in the Gazette. In consequence, the Full Bench of this Court, in Waqas Rafi v. NESCOM (2021 PLC (C.S.) 1309), held that the service rules governing strategic organizations, including PAEC, are non-statutory. This view has also been followed by the Lahore High Court. It is also a settled proposition of law that once rules are non-statutory, no vested or enforceable rights can be claimed through Article 199 of the Constitution. This has been established in various judgements of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, including 2022 SCMR 1256, 2022 SCMR 991, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1262, 2021 SCMR 425 and 2019 SCMR 984.

11. The notifications relied upon by the petitioners are addressed to ministries and divisions of the Federal Government. Under the Rules of Business, 1973, neither NCA nor PAEC qualifies as a ministry, a division, or even an attached department. Consequently, notifications regarding regularization or appointment policies applicable to Civil servants do not apply to employees of the NCA or PAEC. The petitioners' reliance upon these notifications is therefore misplaced. The record further reveals that the petitioners' contracts contained an explicit termination clause permitting either party to terminate the engagement with 30 days' notice or by paying in lieu thereof. This clause was lawfully invoked by the competent authority. The Honorable Supreme Court has consistently held in cases such as Ministry of IPC v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1573) and Abdul Wajid v. NADRA (2021 PLC (C.S.) 596) that where a contract contains a notice termination clause and is terminated accordingly, a constitutional petition is not maintainable.

12. In addition, most of the petitioners' contracts expired by efflux of time on 30.06.2025. It is a settled principle that the expiry of a contractual term automatically brings the employment relationship to an end and creates no vested right to renewal; extension, or regularization through writ jurisdiction. This view has been endorsed by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Miss Naureen Naz Butt v. Pakistan International Airlines through Chairman, PIA (2020 SCMR 1625 Supreme Court). Courts have repeatedly endorsed this view, holding that contractual employees cannot seek constitutional remedies relating to renewal of their expired employment.

13. It is equally well settled that contractual employees of non-statutory bodies cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for redressal of service disputes, as held in the case of Abdul Wahab v. Habib Bank Ltd. (2014 PLC (C.S.) 393). The petitioners before this Court fall squarely within this category. The petitioners argument that PAEC should be treated as the Federal Government merely because the Prime Minister chairs the NCA is misconceived. The Supreme Court in Mustafa Impex (PLD 2016 SC 808) unequivocally held that the term Federal Government refers exclusively to the Federal Cabinet, and no statutory body or authority can be treated as the Federal Government through presumption or implication.

14. It therefore becomes clear that the employment of the petitioners is governed solely by the NCA ESR, 2011, which are non-statutory in nature; their contracts have either expired or have been terminated in accordance with express contractual terms; the petitioners are not civil servants; and the notifications issued by the Establishment Division are wholly inapplicable to the NCA and PAEC.

15. Given this legal framework, the petitioners cannot establish any enforceable right warranting interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Their remedy, if any, lies exclusively in the civil domain under principles of contract law, and not through Article 199 of the Constitution.

16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this petition is devoid of merit. No case for interference in the impugned order has been made out. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed. MH/10/Isl Petitions dismissed.