2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for regularization of her service in the NBP and contends that order dated 21.10.2020 may be set-aside whereby her contract has not been renewed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was appointed in the NBP on contract as AVP/Team Leader - Corporate / Commercial Banking but her service has not been regularized rather her contract has not been extended after 30.06.2020; that petitioner served on various posts of permanent nature starting from Branch Manager to Head of Institutional and Corporate Deposit, Business Development Executive and again Branch Manager, hence, she earned her right to claim regularization having legal expectation in terms of 2005 SCMR 100, 2018 SCMR 157, 2020 SCMR 1664, 2020 SCMR 1425; that petitioner's right has to be considered in the light of this court judgment reported as 2019 PLC (C.S.) Note 19, where it was held that "All employees who are working on different positions in the statutory organization/companies (controlled by the Federal Government) having their own Board of Directors or Board of Governors, has to decide the cases of their employees in accordance with their own service rules independently and regularize the services of those employees without seeking any further approval from the Government of Pakistan, however, such kind of exercise is permissible for one time and in future they shall not hire any person on temporary, daily wages or contract basis"; that similarly placed employees have been given regularization letter on 07.12.2018.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the NBP has opposed the instant writ petition on the question of maintainability and contends that this court as well as Apex Court has already held that contract employee of a statutory organization has no right to file writ petition to claim regularization and has heavily relied upon 2019 PLC (C.S.) 928, 1999 SCMR 467, 2013 SCMR 1707, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 86.

4. Arguments heard, record perused.

5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis vide letter dated 20.05.2014, whose contract has not been extended after 30.06.2020, which has been expired by efflux of time, whereas petitioner has initially filed another writ petition with the claim that she has not been given due right of hearing through speaking order, this court while acknowledging the right of petitioner to that extent passed a direction to the respondent bank to pass a speaking order on the representation of petitioner which has been decided vide letter dated 21.10.2020. The extract of the said letter reveals that her contract has been expired on 30.06.2020, which was not renewed, therefore, now adverting to the question relating to the claim of regularization which has now been settled by different judgments of this court as well as by superior courts, it appears that NBP Staff Service Rules, 1973 have been repealed on the basis of decision rendered by the Cabinet on 18.03.2021. As such there is no legal cover or protection available to the petitioner to claim her service to be converted from contractual to permanent nature under any statutory instrument rather terms of contract clearly stipulate that its relationship is of master and servant, therefore, this court has been guided with the principles settled in 2021 SCMR 609 (Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Zeeshan Usman, 2020 SCMR 1625 (Miss Naureen Naz Butt v. PIA through Chairman, PIA), 2020 SCMR 507 (Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore v. Muhammad Arif), 2019 SCMR 984 (Major (Retd.) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior), 2018 SCMR 162 (Raja Iviz Mehmood v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication).

6. At this stage, argument rendered by petitioner's counsel that petitioner served on the posts of permanent nature gives her a right to claim regularization has been considered in a wrong concept by the petitioner, who is of executive cadre and claimed her right on the strength of judgment reported as 2018 SCMR 157 (Abdul Ghafoor v. NBP), which, is relating to the vacant post of cleaner and messenger and/or a workman whose services have been terminated without any justification and they claimed that they are regular employees of bank and raised their concern before the NIRC in grievance petition, therefore, said judgment is of no help to the petitioner who is not a workman, nor considered in that manner.

7. Keeping in view the above, instant writ petition is misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed as contract of petitioner has already been expired. SA/67/Isl. Petition dismissed.