2018 PLP 1 (PLC N)

Through this Intra Court Appeal, filed under section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the Appellant has challenged the validity of judgment dated 15.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.21759/2010 by the learned Single Judge who accepted the petition of the Respondent for regularization of his services.

2. The grievance voice of the Appellant is that as the Respondent was engaged purely on Daily Wages for a Development Scheme known as "Capacity Building of P&D Department for Improved Poly Planning and Monitoring of Development Process in Punjab", (the "Scheme") therefore, was not entitled to be regularized because the said Scheme was to be ended in December, 2008. The Respondent filed writ petition before this Court for regularization of his services which was accepted by this Court vide the impugned judgment. Hence, this Appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant inter alia submitted that the impugned judgment is against law and facts; that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent was only engaged for the Scheme and could to be regularized as the same was to be ended in December 2012; that this fact has also not been taken into consideration that the Respondent was neither a contract employee nor discharging his services against a permanent post; that the services of the Respondent have been ordered to be regularized against the Government Policy and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Tehsil Municipal Officer, TMA Kahuta and another v. Gul Fraz Khan (2013 SCMR 13); that as the Respondent was allowed to work only due to the interim order passed by this Court which does not create any vested right in favour of the Respondent, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the available record.

5. The moot point of the case is that whether the Respondent was entitled to be regularized or not. The learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the Appellant vehemently submitted that as the Respondent was engaged against a post which was only on need basis for the Scheme and was not entitled to be regularized as the Scheme was to be ended on December 2012. While dealing with this contention, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that undisputedly the Respondent was a daily wages employee initially as Electrician and then as Naib Qasid from the years 2006 to 2010 and even today performing his duties with the Appellant Department. Undoubtedly, the post of Naib Qasid in the Appellant Department is of permanent nature and the salary of the Respondent was paid from the regular budget of the Department. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that the Office Order dated 28.07.2015 proves that not only number of Naib Qasids are working with the Respondent department but earlier vide letter dated 30.07.2009 Secretary (LG & CT Department) in pursuance to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through its President and another (2005 SCMR 100) regularized services of number of Naib Qasids. Admittedly, the Respondent is working continuously for the last about 10 years with the Appellant Department and the Appellant had issued two experience certificates dated 03.08.2007 and 12.09.2009 as well as attendance sheets annexed with the petition clearly mentioned the name of its Department viz: Government of Punjab Planning and Development Department rather the name of Scheme; meaning thereby the Appellant owns the Respondent to be the employee of its Department. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge has also relied upon the principles laid down by the apex Court as well as Para 1(b) of Schedule attached to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (the "Ordinance"). Therefore, we see no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment which has been passed by the learned Single Judge while relying upon the documents produced as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department Government of Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akhtar and others (2009 SCMR 320), Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another (2005 SCMR 100) and Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others v. Ahmad Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547).

6. In this view of the matter, we agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge and do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment which has been passed strictly in consonance with the spirit of law, as such does not warrant any interference by us. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment which may result its setting aside. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant (2013 SCMR 13) is concerned, in this regard the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has rightly observed that in that case the situation was different as in the present case admittedly the Respondent was not on contract basis rather on daily wages performing his duties for the last more than 10 years whereas in that case the employees were on contract basis and the terms and conditions of their services were to be governed under the said contract and not under the Ordinance.

7. On the touchstone of the above discussion, we feel no hesitation to hold that the services of the Respondent have rightly been regularized; consequently, the Appeal in hand, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. MH/S-70/L Appeal dismisse