2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioners are serving as contract Research Officers BPS-17 P&D Department Gilgit-Baltistan. Petitioners were appointed in response to an advertisement bearing No.PIG(GLT)15/2013 in the year 2013. The petitioners were shortlisted, called for interview and after fulfillment of codal formalities they were appointed on contract basis for a period of one year vide office order No. P&DD-18(1)/13 dated 01-03-2013. The contract services of the petitioners were extended for another year on the expiry of the period of one year contract vide notification dated 26-06-2014. The services of the petitioners were again extended for one year vide notification dated 23-02-2015 and then by a notification dated 01-06-2016 one year more contractual extension was granted to the petitioners and lastly on 13-03-2017 the same extension of one year was granted to the petitioners.

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court in a judgment dated 7-9-2017 directed the respondent No.2 (Secretary Services) to consider the cases of contract employees who's cases were not falling within the ambit of Regularization Contract Employees Act, 2014.

3. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners were lacking about 6 months service at the time of promulgation of Regularization Contract Employees Act, 2014, which became a hurdle to consider their cases for regularization.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Government of Gilgit-Baltistan has regularized the contract services of the contract employees of various departments who were a little short of fulfillment of the condition/criteria laid down in the Regularization Contract Employees Act, 2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments submitted that this Court in writ petition No.104/2017 titled (Sanaullah v. Provincial Government) decided on 28-02-2019 by another bench consisting of Hon'ble Chief Judge and Justice All Baig has allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authorities of P&D Department and Secretary Services to regularize the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed a number of notifications pertaining to different departments, whereby the services of contract employees who were appointed after fulfillment of the codal formalities were regularized which are not being quoted to avoid a lengthy and laborious judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on 2018 SCMR 1405, 2018 SCMR 1881, 2018 SCMR 325, 2018 SCMR 157, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 647, 2018 (C.S.) 383, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 354 and 2019 PLC (C.S.) 78 in support of his contentions.

5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that the petitioners have no case for their regularization as the contract service does not confer any right of regularization to the petitioners. The petitioner case as admitted by them was not falling under Regularization Contract Employees Act-2014 and now they have no right to file the instant writ petition before this Court. The posts of the petitioners have been requisitioned through FPSC but not action could have been taken due to pendency of the instant writ petition.

6. We heard both the parties at a considerable length and also perused the record of the case with their valuable assistance. In para 8 of the comments furnished by the respondents, the respondents have admitted that the posts of Research Officer BPS-17 are laying vacant and have already been requisitioned to FPSC.

7. It is pertinent to mentioned her that in the cases of similar nature this Court has already allowed the writs with the direction to the respondents to regularize the services of contract employees in the department of P&D Department Gilgit-Baltistan. The case of one Sanaullah of P & D department stated supra is identical to the case in hand. The Article-25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is a safeguard against any discrimination and stresses upon the policy of "equal among the qual" unless and until a reasonable classification is made out, which should also not be arbitrary, capricious or in violation of depriving of equality. The discrimination as defined in 2011 SCMR 148 and 2004 SCMR 1903 the guiding principle of equality is that all persons and things similarly circumstanced will be treated alike both in respect of privilege in comfort and liabilities imposed. Equality of citizen provided in Article 25 of Constitution of Pakistan is that equality has to be between persons who are of the same class and in same set of circumstances. Article 25 of the constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is synonymous to Article 17 of Empowerment and Self Governance Order, 2009, which are reproduced as under:- Article

25. Equality of Citizens.- (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. (2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex [ ]. (3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children. Likewise Art-17 of Self Empowerment and Governance Order, 2009 is as under:-- Article

17. Eat of Citizens.- All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.

8. As discussed above the case of the present petitioners is identical to the cases referred supra, therefore, we have no hesitation to allow the petition in hand. The petitioners have the experience of about 05 years at their credit and-their retention will be in the interest of the department as well.

9. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners immediately without any further delay and the compliance report shall be furnished to the Registrar of this Court within the period of 03 months, who will present the same before us in our chamber for our perusal and appropriate orders if deemed necessary.

10. Writ petition No.162/2018 is allowed in the above terms and Contempt Petition No.16/2018 has become infructuous, which is also disposed off. ZC/90/GB Petition allowed.