2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN through Chairman and another Versus MUHAMMAD SAJID and others
| Citation | 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Maqbool Baqar, JJ |
| Parties | BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN through Chairman and another Versus MUHAMMAD SAJID and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Maqbool Baqar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN through Chairman and another Versus MUHAMMAD SAJID and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shakeel Javed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No. 2703 of 2018).
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1-30 (in C.P. No. 2704 of 2018).
- Abdul Razzaq Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos. 3115 and 3118 of 2018).
- Tanveer Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos. 3116 and 3117 of 2018).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No. 3879 of 2018).
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 2018.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgments dated 14.05.2018, 29.05.2018, 12.09.2018 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in I.C.As. Nos. 149, 150, 186, 196, 187, 188, 189 and 190 of 2018)
Daily wage workers/contract employees of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education
Artificial breaks in service period by re-employing workers after every 89 days
Respondents (daily wage workers) had been working with the petitioner-Board since long, however, in an attempt to break the continuity of their service, the Board had been employing them for 89 days only, and re-hired them for the next 89 days, and thus continued to avail their service for a long period by creating artificial breaks in their service period
Fact that the respondents had continuously served the Board for a long period of time, albeit the breaks created by Board clearly showed that they had been performing job of permanent nature and had not been serving on casual posts
Admittedly, similarly placed employees of Boards of other cities had been regularized in pursuance of orders of the High Court, which were upheld by the Supreme Court
Respondents were rightly found eligible and entitled for regularization of their service with the Board by the High Court
Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed accordingly. Civil Petition No. 2509 of 2006, Judgment dated 7th March, 2018 ref. Respondent No.1 in person (in C.P. No. 2702 of 2018).
Judgment & Decree
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.
Since the respondents, who have been working with the petitioner-Board since last many years on daily wages, were not being regularized by the Board, they filed Writ Petitions before the Lahore High Court which petitions were granted. The Board challenged the said orders through ICAs, which appeals have been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court.
2. As rightly noted in the impugned judgments, the issue involved in the cases, i.e. regularization of the daily wage workers/contract employees, has already been settled by this Court, through judgment dated 7th March, 2018, in Civil Petition No. 2509/2006, whereby, this Court has upheld judgment dated 7th June, 2016 in terms whereof the Lahore High Court has allowed a similar petition filed by the daily wage, workers/contract employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi for regularization of their services.
3. It is an admitted position that the respondents before us have been working with the petitioner-Board since long, however, in their clumsy attempt to break the continuity of their service, the petitioner has been employing them for 89 days only, and has been re-hiring them for the next 89 days, and thus continued to avail their service for a long period by creating artificial breaks in their service period. The fact that they have, in fact, continuously served the petitioner for a long period of time, albeit the breaks created by the petitioner, as noted above, clearly shows that they have been performing job of permanent nature and have not been serving on casual posts. Admittedly, similarly placed employees of BISC Rawalpindi, have been regularized in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court, upheld by this Court, as noted above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight a single feature distinguishing the nature of the respondents' job/employment, disentitling them from regularization. The respondents, in the circumstances, were rightly found eligible and entitled for regularization of their service with the petitioner-Board, and have rightly been so ordered through the impugned judgments and we do not find any justification for interfering therewith. The petitions in the circumstances are dismissed. MWA/B-1/SC Petitions dismissed.