2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.

Ali Rehman and 5 others Petitioners herein, are imploring the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ as per their prayer set-out in their petition in the following form:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition in the light of aforementioned submissions, this Court may kindly issue appropriate writ to the Respondent No.3 to reinstate the Petitioners on their own posts with all back benefits, according the spirit of act.

2. That this honoruble Court may also issue directions to the concerned Respondents to count their seniority from the date of their first appointment mentioned in Para-2 of this petition."

2. In essence the present Petitioners were PST teachers in different schools of District Dir Upper. Subsequently, their services were dispensed with by the Respondents being no more required as they have been appointed purely on temporary basis as stop-gap arrangements.

3. In the meanwhile, the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa passed the "Sacked Employees Act, 2012", wherein it has been decided that only those government employees will be given the benefit of reinstatement who have been terminated during the period from 1st day of November 1996 to 31st day of December 1998. After promulgation of the ibid Act, some of the Petitioners submitted applications for their reinstatement on 20.10.2012 before the competent authority, while the others approached the Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. Yet despite all these visible efforts, the Respondents are not willing to compensate the Petitioners by way of their re-appointment as school teachers. In such circumstances, they have knocked the door of this Court through the writ petition in hand inter-alia on the grounds enumerated therein.

4. The Respondents were put on notice, amongst whom, comments were sought from the Respondent No. 3 on 11.10.2017 but the same are still awaited and from such careless attitude of the concerned Respondent i.e. District Education Officer (Male) District Dir Upper, it seems that the said officer has nothing to say in his defence, therefore, despite lapse of such considerable time the reply on his behalf is still awaited.

5. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Astt: Advocate General appearing on behalf of official Respondents being present in Court in connection with some other cases, the available record placed on file was gone through with their valuable assistance.

6. Before rendering any findings in respect of the grievance of the Petitioners, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012, which runs:- Preamble:- Whereas, it is expedient to provide relief to those sacked employees who were appointed on regular basis lo a civil post in the Province of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and who possessed the prescribed qualification and experience required for the said post, during the period from 1st day of November, 1993 to the 30th day of November 1996 (both days inclusive) and were dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from 1st day of November, 1996 to 31st day of December, 1998 on various grounds. S.2 (g):- "sacked employee" means a person who was appointed on regular basis to a civil post in the Province and who possessed the prescribed qualification and experience for the said post at that time, during the period from 1st day of November, 1993 to 30th day of November, 1996 (both days inclusive) and has dismissed, removed, or terminated from service during the period from 1st day of November, 1996 to 31st day of December 1998 on the ground of irregular appointments."

7. It is crystal clear from above quoted provisions of the Act ibid that only those persons/employees would be given benefit of reinstatement, who were appointed on regular basis to a civil post, Possessed the requisite/prescribed qualification and experience for the subject post and above all terminated from service during the period from 1st day of November, 1996 to 3lst day of December, 1998. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that the services of the petitioners were terminated on 13.02.1997, so by means they are falling within the cut-off date as referred to above.

8. Earlier, similarly placed persons, like Petitioners approached this Court through W.P. No. 1662-P of 2013 titled "Hazrat Hussain v. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat Peshawar", which was allowed in the following manner:- "It is worth to note that persons similarly placed with the petitioners have been reinstated by the department while giving effect to the judgments given the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal. More so, one Mst. Gul Rukh whose services were terminated by the respondents along with the petitioners, has been appointed under the Act vide order dated 09.05.2013. It is cardinal principle of law that similarly placed persons should be treated alike and no different yard stick should be used while redressing their grievances. It is hallmark and grundnorm of our constitution that every person is entitled to equal protection of law. Not only similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioners have been appointed by the respondents but the petitioners are also entitled to the relief given lo the sacked employees under the Act. For what has been discussed above, we admitted and accept both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for their appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Act." The above-referred judgment of this Court was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 401-P of 2016 under the titled "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar v. Iftikhar Khan and others" along with other identical matters. The Hon'ble apex Court vide its judgment dated 24.5.2017 upheld the verdict of this Court in the following manner:- "We have been apprised by the learned counsel for the respondents that according to the advertisement and appointment letter issued to the respondents, two kinds of candidates could be appointed (i) those who have the requisite academic qualifications and training; (ii) those who have the requisite academic qualifications but do not possess the necessary training. As regard the second category, such persons would be provided with an opportunity to complete the training within a specific period. This is exactly what the learned High Court has allowed in the relief grating portion of the impugned judgment. Undoubtedly, this is in consonance with the Department's own advertisement and the terms and conditions of service, therefore, the learned High Court did not fall into any error by requiring the Department to allow the respondents to complete the training within a specific period of time and to take action against them in case of failure to do so. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgment, which is upheld. Resultantly, Civil Petition No. 401-P/2016 is dismissed on merit. The connected petitions are also dismissed on the above score and being time-barred as no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay."

9. In the above developed scenario, there is no denial of the fact that the services of the Petitioners were terminated within the cutoff date i.e. 1st day of November 1996 to 31st day of December 1998 coupled with the fact that similarly placed persons like Petitioners have been given the benefit of reinstatement by this Court, which judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, so, on this score too, the Petitioners deserves to be given the same benefit of re-instatement being similarly placed persons.

10. However, since no record of the educational credentials of the Petitioners has been placed on record, in view of which, their present educational status/competency could be ascertained qua their eligibility for the subject posts of PTS. Even otherwise, it is appealable to prudent mind that during the intervening period i.e. from the date of their termination up till now the Petitioners would have not improved their educational skills further and would have just waited for final outcome of their case. Learned Astt: Advocate General present in Court submits that if all the cases of Petitioners fall under the ibid Act, he would have no objection of their re-instatement subject to their eligibility for the subject posts of teachers. Moreover, the answering Respondent No. 3 despite Court direction has so far been unable to file the requisite comments, so, it is presumed that he is answerless in the matter.

11. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of in terms that the Respondents/Department is directed to consider the case of Petitioners for their re-instatement under the umbrella of Sacked Employees Act, 2012 coupled with the fact being similarly placed persons but subject to their eligibility for the requisite posts of PST teachers within a period of one month positively. Since the Petitioners are languishing for the ultimate outcome of their wheel of fortune since the year 1997, therefore, it is expected from the answering Respondents that this issue will be put to an end once for all within the target span. ZC/184/P Petition disposed of.