2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

GULZAR AHMED, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:

(i) Declare that the act of respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioners under SESSI Revised Regulation 2006, instead of SESSI revised regulation 1987 as well as Sindh Act No.V of 2003, is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, mala fide, arbitrary without lawful authority and in violation of principle of natural justice, equity and fairness. (ii) Direct the' respondents to issue orders for regularization of the service of the petitioners since their date of appointment/joining in accordance with SESSI Revised Regulation, 1987, as well as Sindh Act, No.V of 2003. (iii) Grant any others relief(s) which this honourable court may deem appropriate and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Grant costs of the petition. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners were entitled to be regularized from the date of their appointment in terms of Sindh Employees Social Security Institution Service Regulations, 1987 and alternatively petitioners ought to have been regularized under the Sindh Regularization of Doctors Appointed on Contract Basis Act, 2003. The counsel for the respondent has contended that petitioners have earlier filed Constitutional Petitions seeking regularization of their appointments and while such petitions were pending, on 26.2.2008 petitioners' services were regularized with immediate effect and on such regularization petitions were disposed of vide order dated 14.1.2009 noting that the purpose of filing of the petition has been achieved. He further contended that the Sindh Regularization of Doctors Appointed on Contract Basis Act, 2003 has no application to the petitioners. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and have gone through the record. It appears that petitioners were appointed on 1-11-2002 as Resident Medical Officers and Medical Officers (BS-17) by the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution on contract basis for maximum period of three years. While the petitioners contractual employment was continuing, they separately filed Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1504, 1506, 1507, 1509, 1510, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1516 and 1523 of 2004 in which the very first prayer was to declare their services with the respondents on regular basis in accordance with regulations of the respondents. While such petitions were pending, petitioners were regularized through respondents' letter dated 26-2-2008 with immediate effect. On 14-1-2009 the said petitions came up in Court, when the counsel for the respondents stated that petitioners have been regularized by the respondents and their grievance has been redressed. In view of this statement, the Court disposed of the petitions by noting that purpose of petitions has been served. This order was passed in the presence of counsel for the petitioners and apparently none of the petitioners has challenged the same rather they seem to have accepted the same. The very question of petitioners regularization according to regulations have already been considered and decided, successive petition on the same cause of action and for the same relief will not be maintainable as the principle of constructive res judicata will apply and petition will be barred under the law. Reference in this respect is made to the case of Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1975 Lah. 692, Messrs Sartaj Industries Ltd. v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1989 SCMR 2053 and Fazal Din and 14 others v. The Custodian Evacuee Property, Lahore and 21 others PLD 1971 SC

779. As regards the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, same is wholly untenable for the reasons that the Sindh Regulation of Doctors Appointed on Contract Basis Act, 2003 applies only to the civil servants and not to the employees of statutory body like that of Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, the respondent. For the foregoing reasons, through our short order dated 31-5-2010, we have dismissed this petition. Above are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./H-10/K Petition dismissed.