Contractual employment

Briefly, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the Livestock and Dairy Development Department in 2010 pursuant to an advertisement

Their salaries were initially withheld but later released after verification of the recruitment process

Upon completion of the contract period, an inquiry into the appointments was conducted, which declared the recruitment unlawful, leading to non-extension of their contracts and discontinuation of services, though they were paid salaries for the period served

The petitioners thereafter filed multiple representations, writ petitions, appeals and related proceedings seeking regularization and reinstatement, all of which culminated in rejection of their claims and finally the impugned order was passed which was challenged through the present constitutional petition

Held: There was no vested right to seek extension in service

Further, when the contract appointments were not extended, there was no question for regularization of services of the petitioners

No remedy was available to the petitioners to file a fresh representation for reopening the matter which had attained finality after withdrawal of their appeal from the Supreme Court

Hence, the petitioners had no lawful right to reopen a closed and past transaction

Representation at first was not maintainable on which the impugned order was unlawfully passed

Constitutional petition being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

In a private employment employee could not conceive to be an employee of a private entity forever and any interference would amount to interference of his/her fundamental right

Termination even beyond the terms of the employment, at the most would lead to a claim of damages

High Court declined to grant relief of injunction to plaintiffs, as they were in the employment of an entity which created relationship of master and servant

One of the plaintiffs was on contract employment having specific terms which also allowed termination of service on one month's notice or in lieu of a salary

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

However, during the course of his employment, he got involved in a criminal case and was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment

Petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court, which was accepted, and he was acquitted of the charges

While the criminal trial was ongoing, the respondent terminated the petitioner's contract of employment

After his acquittal, the petitioner sought reinstatement, but his request was denied

Validity

Petitioner was treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his contract of employment, which he had accepted at the time of his appointment

As such, he could not deviate from those terms at present stage

Additionally, the issue pertained to government policy matters, which the High Court could not interfere with

It was the government's prerogative to determine the manner in which appointments should be made, and such policy decisions were typically not subject to legal challenge unless they failed the test of reasonableness

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Contract employee cannot approach High Court by filing a constitutional petition agitating grievance qua his contractual employment.

Daily wager or contract employee is precluded to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with regard to matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, as the relationship inter se the employee and department shall always be deemed to be as of "master and servant"

In case of breach of any of the terms and conditions of contract or any other issue ensuing therefrom the grouse can only be remedied by filing a suit for damages.

Petitioner assailed cancellation/ withdrawal of his contract employment vide impugned order on the ground of production of fake middle school certificate

Chief Executive Officer of the District Education Authority had declared the petitioner's middle school certificate as fake

Terms and conditions of the employment contract explicitly showed that the appointment would be considered as void ab initio in case same obtained on the basis of forged/bogus documents or through deceitful means

Employer had the prerogative to get verified any documents/certificates of a person employed at any stage of service for satisfaction even though it was not mentioned in the letter of appointment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

No legal cover or protection was available to the petitioner to claim her service to be converted from contractual to permanent nature under any statutory instrument rather terms of contract clearly stipulated as Master and Servant

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioners were employees of erstwhile Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) and after creation of Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) they sought their regularization

Appointments of members of PMDC and Board was also assailed on the plea that the same were non-transparent

Held, that all employees of erstwhile PMDC or PMC whether contractual, adhoc, temporary or permanent, were governed under non-statutory rules and regulations since inception of erstwhile PMDC

All employees including petitioners had no right to challenge legislative intent of Parliament in Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, where Parliament had settled terms and conditions of employment of all employees of erstwhile PMDC or PMC in terms of Ss.8(2) & 49 of Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020

Petitioners had no vested right in any manner to claim continuation of their service till age of superannuation

Provisions of Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 were intra vires and were not in violation or against Fundamental rights of petitioners in any manner or employees of erstwhile PMDC

Appointments of respondents as members of PMDC through notification dated 25-09-2020 were illegal, non-transparent, without any selection process and against merits promoting favoritism and nepotism

As such protection given to respondents in terms of R.8 of Appointment of Members (Council and Board) Rules, 2021 was illegal as it was person specific and contrary to the parent statute, principles of fairness, ultra vires and against the concept and wisdom referred to in the Constitution and law

Contractual employees of erstwhile PMDC seeking regularization after termination or expiry of their contract was a closed and past transaction and it could not be reagitated, even before new PMC like cases of other petitioners

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Long service is no ground for regularization.

When the High Court was exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, it could not extend the scope of a contract or alter/amend the terms and conditions of employment in favour of employee that had been signed by an employee as the same went against the spirit of the very concept of contract employment

When an employee accepted a post in a project, he was aware of the fact that the project would come to an end on its completion or cessation of its funding (as the case may be) and with that, his employment would also come to an end

Forcing the Government to "accommodate/adjust" such employees was not only a transgression of the powers vested with the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, but was also a burden on the Government Exchequer which the court was not at liberty to place

Employer had the prerogative to decide the terms and conditions of an employee's contract, and it was not for the court to step into the shoes of the employer and force him to employ someone for whom there was no available post and even if there was one, without following due process, procedure and criteria.

When the High Court was exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, it could not extend the scope of a contract or alter/amend the terms and conditions of employment in favour of employee that had been signed by an employee as the same went against the spirit of the very concept of contract employment

When an employee accepted a post in a project, he was aware of the fact that the project would come to an end on its completion or cessation of its funding (as the case may be) and with that, his employment would also come to an end

Forcing the Government to "accommodate/adjust" such employees was not only a transgression of the powers vested with the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, but was also a burden on the Government Exchequer which the court was not at liberty to place

Employer had the prerogative to decide the terms and conditions of an employee's contract, and it was not for the court to step into the shoes of the employer and force him to employ someone for whom there was no available post and even if there was one, without following due process, procedure and criteria.

Employees having entered into contract of service had no vested right to seek regularization of their employment, which was discretionary with the master and the master was well within his rights to retain or dispense with the service of his/its Employees on the basis of satisfactory or otherwise performance.

Petitioners were appointed as contractual employees of the respondent for a period of one year or till the arrival of regular selectees and as per Cl. (1) of terms and conditions of their appointment orders their services were to be terminated at any time/stage without serving any prior notice

Petitioners though had served in the university from the years 2013 to 2019 but there was no provision in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, under which they could claim their regularization as a right

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner and respondent submitted their nomination papers for Special Interest Seats in elections of Cantonment Boards

Nomination papers of respondent were rejected on the ground that he was in service of a University, thus, he was disqualified in terms of S. 60(1)(g) of Cantonment Ordinance, 2002, being in service of a statutory body

Respondent assailed said order through an appeal, which was allowed

Validity

Respondent was in the employment of a University wherein the status of his service was mentioned as of "contract"

University had its own statutes framed and approved

Section 3 of the University of Science and Technology Bannu Service Statutes, 2018, revealed that the respondent being contract employee would not be dealt with the statutes of University

Impugned order did not suffer from infirmity or jurisdictional defect

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Contractual employee cannot file writ petition to seek redressal in respect of grievance relating to terms and conditions of his service

Constitutional petition may be granted in a case where there is statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation

Principal function of the Constitutional petition is to compel performance of public duty prescribed by the statute and to keep the subordinate officer exercising public function within the limits of his jurisdiction.

Where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of Master and Servant and in such like cases constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

Petitioner sought direction to the Provincial Government to regularize his services from the date of appointment as Junior Clerk with back benefits

Validity

Appointment of petitioner was only for 89 days and it was nowhere mentioned in the appointment letter that it was a job of permanent nature or the same was likely to be permanent in future

High Court observed that it was the prerogative of the department to determine which employees were required for the extended period

No vested right existed in favour of a particular employee to insist that the department be directed to retain or regularize his services

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioners had accepted services on contract basis with the respondents vide contract appointment letters wherein it was categorically mentioned that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a period of two years

One of the petitioners had attained the age of superannuation whereas the other was out of service for last more than six years

Contract employee, whose period of contract employment had expired by afflux of time, carried no vested right to remain in employment of the employer and the Court could not force the employer to regularize, reinstate or extend the contract of the employee

Petitioners had failed to point out any right to seek regularization on the basis of any constitutional guarantee or statutory law or instrument, which was denied to them

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Terms and conditions agreed upon-Appellants were contractual employees of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority and claimed their right to regularization on ground of eligibility and completing the contract continuously and without break as per extension of the contract year by year

Maintainability

Contract employee, whose period of such employment expired by afflux of time, carried no vested right to remain in employment and Courts could not force the employer to regularize, reinstate or extend the contract of the employee

For invoking Constitutional jurisdiction, applicant had to point out a statutory or Constitutional right vested in him and that such right had been denied in violation of law

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in limine.

Contention of authorities was that services of petitioners were not continuous, rather there was a gap in between two extensions

Held; contention did not hold water as the gap was not due to uncontrolled circumstances rather the same was created intentionally with a view to debar the petitioners from the future claim of regularization

Petitioners were serving continuously and respondents were also in the need of their services and thus had granted them extensions but it was not understandable that for what purpose a gap was inserted between two extensions and why extensions were not granted without a gap

Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances and services of the petitioners were ordered to be regularized.

Person who has been a contractual employee but whose period of contractual service has come to an end has no right whatsoever to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court.

Petitioner, a contractual employee, after being dismissed from service, sought a direction from the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction to the competent authority to decide his representation

Contention of petitioner was that two regular employees who were dismissed from service along with him had been reinstated in service as the Service Tribunal had remanded their matter for a de novo inquiry

Validity

Contractual services came to an abrupt end upon the employee being held guilty of a misdemeanour let alone a felony (which was the present case)

Petitioner, according to information provided by the administrative department, still had to make good the monetary loss he had been held guilty of embezzling and there was no coming back for him

Employee's relations with his master stood severed by the self-executory contract

Petitioner could not be treated at par with his colleagues who were regular employees

Contractual employee served at the absolute and unfettered pleasure of his master

On the other hand, a regular employee was entitled to statutory procedural protection in the event of facing a charge of misconduct

Court while issuing directions for deciding representations had to give due regard to the rights of such other persons in particular who might be the direct affectees of such direction

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent was a private limited company and its rules namely Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974, were framed by the Board of Directors under the power conferred on them through Articles of Association

Rules were neither framed by the Federal Government nor were they framed under any statute

Said rules could not be termed as statutory rules

Petitioner was appointed for a period of one year and no formal extension was available on record, therefore, the petitioner's contract had already expired

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Where contract employee is removed from service and his contract period has already lapsed, no constitutional petition for re-instatement in service is maintainable rather only damages can be claimed before an appropriate forum.

Contract employee cannot seek enforcement of contractual obligations by invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

Appellant assailed the dismissal of his constitutional petition which was filed against the termination of his contractual employment

Validity

Contract of employment explicitly showed that the appointment was purely temporary which could be terminated on thirty days' notice or in lieu of payment without assigning any reason

Appellant, at the time of joining, had accepted all the terms and conditions of his contractual employment and he could not resile from the same at belated stage

Record established that the appellant's performance had remained unsatisfactory

Intra court appeal, being bereft of any force, was dismissed.

Writ of mandamus could not be claimed as a matter of right and, for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus, there must be a legal right existing in favour of the person seeking a writ of mandamus and a corresponding legal duty imposed upon the public officer or authority against whom the writ is sought

Petitioners, who were contractual employees, did not have any vested right to seek appointment on regular basis; and, they had also not acquired any legal right from the appointment made by the Provincial Government and accepted by them admittedly on contract

No corresponding legal duty was cast on the Government to appoint them on regular basis, and thus, writ of mandamus, for by the petitioners, could not be granted

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Writ of mandamus could not be claimed as a matter of right and, for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus, there must be a legal right existing in favour of the person seeking a writ of mandamus and a corresponding legal duty imposed upon the public officer or authority against whom the writ is sought

Petitioners, who were contractual employees, did not have any vested right to seek appointment on regular basis; and, they had also not acquired any legal right from the appointment made by the Provincial Government and accepted by them admittedly on contract

No corresponding legal duty was cast on the Government to appoint them on regular basis, and thus, writ of mandamus, for by the petitioners, could not be granted

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

As proviso was inserted in S.15 of National Command Authority Act, 2010, competently and validly therefore, High Court could not refuse to enforce it even if result of it was to nullify a judgment

Petitioners after availing all remedies available under S.11 of National Command Authority Act, 2010 or Rules made thereunder had a grievance of exceptional or extraordinary nature based on the ground of mala fide or coram non judice then the latter could submit a representation before the Authority and the Authority was to constitute a Committee pursuant to powers conferred under S.3(6) of National Command Authority Act, 2010, for consideration of grievances

Petitioners were regulated and governed under non-statutory rules and were not amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner, who was employed on contractual basis by the Federal Tax Ombudsman, impugned termination of his employment before expiry of contract inter alia on the ground that said termination violated the law and was made without hearing the petitioner

Validity

Contract employee could not claim any vested right even for regularization of service and S. 20 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 conferred power on Federal Tax Ombudsman to appoint advisor(s) for assistance at his discretion, which discretion could not be called into question by petitioner

Petitioner had no vested right to remain on temporary contractual post and impugned order could not be questioned by him

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants sought direction of High Court to the authorities to regularize their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment

Appellants contended that similarly placed persons had been regularized; that the appellants had completed one year of contractual service and therefore deserved to be regularized; that despite expiry of their contract, the appellants continued to perform their duties; that during the pendency of appellants' constitutional petition, authorities had initiated the appointment process against 23 posts of the same cadre and that the authorities should have regularized the appellants instead of initiating a fresh appointment process

Validity

Appellants had not pleaded that they were offered appointment after participation in a competitive process

Terms and conditions of appellants' employment were set out in appointment letters which clearly provided that the appointment was purely on temporary basis for a period of six months, and that it would automatically terminate after completion of the said period and that the appointment would be liable to termination on thirty days notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice, without assigning any reason

Appellants did not place on record any provision in Service Rules under which their temporary/contractual employment could be converted into a permanent employment

Youth to secure permanent employment in the public sector would be let down and demoralized if the contractual employment of persons like the appellants was converted into permanent employment without a competitive process

Appellants, during their contractual appointment, were not working against sanctioned posts

Appeal, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

Contractual employment did not transform into regular employment by simple efflux of time without a specific regularization order or provision in the employment contract where contractual employment was to become regular after a specified period of time.

Petitioner was working with respondent company on temporary basis till the selection of a suitable candidate on the relevant post

Petitioner was aggrieved of the press advertisement made by respondent company regarding post in question

Validity

High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, could not interfere in the transparent policy decision of executive, aimed at achieving the best possible result in managing its affairs

High Court had very limited jurisdiction for examining such criteria and such exercise of power could not be interfered with

Petitioner was not in possession of any appointment letter issued by respondent company assigning job to him to the effect that he had become permanent employee of respondent company

Petitioner failed to bring on record any evidence to show that he had at any point of time become employee of respondent company, therefore, he could not be held to be a regular employee

In absence of statutory rules as to terms and conditions of service of an employee. Constitutional petition filed by such employee was not maintainable

Any servant having entered into a contract of service had no vested right to seek regularization of his employment which was discretionary with the master

Master was within his right to retain or dispense with the service of a servant on the basis of satisfactory or otherwise performance

Contract employee had no right to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction where his services were terminated on completion of period of contract

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court against respondent Corporation for getting his contractual employment regularized

Validity

Petitioner had no fundamental or legal right to claim employment in the service of respondent Corporation

Employment of petitioner was governed by principle of master and servant and not in accordance with any statue or rules made thereunder

Constitutional petition on the basis of agreement/contract arrived between petitioner and respondent Corporation was misconceived and not maintainable

Respondent Corporation was not Federation of Pakistan and it was impleaded only to confer jurisdiction on High Court

Respondent Corporation did not enjoy status of a statutory Corporation established and controlled by Federation nor performing any of the sovereign functions of State so as to be declared as a body corporate performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Prosecutors had been appointed on contract after taking competitive examination through the process of Public Service Commission

Process of recruitment of prosecutors had been initiated and applications had been invited by the Public Service Commission

Contractual employment did not confer any right for regularization of service

Contract/ ad hoc employee could not claim any vested right

Appointments of petitioners were not only on contract basis but their services might continue as long as Public Service Commission had finalized the recruitment process

Petitioners were temporary and contract employees and their services were liable to termination on twenty four hours notice from either side on any ground in lieu of one month's pay paid or deposited

Petitioners were estopped to raise any question on legality or validity of their contractual employment by accepting the terms and conditions of service

High Court observed that dispensation of justice was likely to be affected due to such lethargic and unattended attitude of official respondents

Official respondents were directed to address the issue without further delay

No case had been made out in favour of petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Contention of petitioner was that he could not be terminated during the period of probation without proceeding in accordance with law

Validity

Petitioner was appointed on contract for a period of three years with the first year as a period of probation

Termination could take place during the said period without assigning any reason

One month prior notice of termination or one month pay in lieu thereof was to be paid

If termination during the period of probation was not for a misconduct, there was no requirement for providing any reason or proceedings against terminated employee through a regular inquiry

Principle of "master and servant" was applicable in the present case

Unwilling master could not be compelled for reinstatement by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction

If petitioner was still aggrieved of his termination of contract of service, he might if so advised sought his remedies but before the competent forum

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner being contract employee was terminated from service and he was held entitled to draw one month pay in lieu of giving one month notice in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment orders

Validity

Petitioner was appointed on contract basis and his services could be terminated by giving one month notice or payment of an amount equal to one month salary in lieu of notice period

Petitioner had been held entitled to draw one month pay in lieu of termination notice

Contract of service did not create any vested right in the appointee so as to make him entitled to be served with notice before termination of contract of his service

Contract of petitioner was terminated without stigmatizing him

Petitioner was given a very safe and honourable exit from service without leveling any allegation against him

If a person was employee on contract basis and terms of employment had provided the manner of termination of his service, same could be terminated in terms thereof

If a person was to be condemned for misconduct then in that event even if he was a contract employee he would be entitled to a fair opportunity to clear his position

Regular inquiry was necessary in case of stigmatized termination

Contract appointment of petitioner had been simply terminated without any allegation of misconduct

No writ could be issued in contractual obligation by the High Court unless contract employment was terminated with any stigma

Petitioner in contractual appointment was not vested with a right to press for his reinstatement into service for the left over period

Where services of an employee were not governed by any statutory rules the principle of "master and servant" would be applicable and constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be exercised

Petitioner was not entitled for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction for seeking his reinstatement

Employee of corporation/institution in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rules could not press into service the constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief for reinstatement in service

Remedy against wrong dismissal or termination of petitioner was only to claim damages

Order of termination of petitioner without any stigma could not be challenged before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages by employee/plaintiff seeking inter alia, declaration that transfer order issued by the employer/defendant was illegal

Plaintiff/applicant sought interim injunction against operation of transfer letter issued by its employer

Held, that relationship of plaintiff with defendant was one of "master" and "servant" and such relationship continued under the contract/agreement which either sides entered into, acknowledging the legality thereof coupled with prescribed rules, if any, so referred to in such contract

Such employee worked at his choice and the desire of the employer was the right of the authority/"master" and to follow the same was the obligation of the "servant"/employee and without the same, the relationship of master and servant would collapse; and such relationship was necessary to run the affairs of an institution which was established by the "master" to be run by "servants"

In case of any mala fide causing prejudice resulting in some damages to the "servant"; such person would have a right to claim damages but in no way such person could seek an interim order from the court which otherwise amounted to creating a situation for the employer to let the "servant" control and command over the financial affairs against the wish of the employer

Application of plaintiff, if allowed to succeed would result in giving a cause/right to every single "servant" to approach the court to seek suspension of transfer orders and continuity of working against the wishes of his employer / master; which could not be stamped as the same, in all senses, could amount to an undue advantage

Plaintiff had not been able to show as to how the transfer order was illegal when admittedly he had complied with earlier such orders, hence "prima facie case" and "balance of convenience" were not available to the plaintiff

Application under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contractual employment did not confer any vested right upon the employee to continue in his service on permanent basis without going through a procedure prescribed under the rules/policy for appointment of the post he was working on.

Petitioners were employees of Federal Government on daily wages/contract basis but they were not regularized under the policy formulated for the purpose

Validity

High Court directed that Federal Government which owned the policy should provide effective forum and decide grievances of petitioners being the best judge of its own policy; that Federal Government would constitute a Committee to consider grievances and pass speaking orders in each case after giving opportunity of hearing to employees; that each employer would submit its comments to Federal Government for placing the same before Committee constituted for the purpose and the Committee after hearing petitioners and respective employer would pass orders in accordance with law and that in the event Committee had come to the conclusion that there had been discrimination in implementing the policy, the decision would be communicated to Federal Government who would ensure its implementation without delay

Committee would identify all such cases in which employees were eligible under the policy to be considered and a Cabinet sub-Committee would be constituted to consider the cases referred by the Committee and the Committee would process the cases preferably within 90 days

High Court expected from respective employers that restraint would be exercised in taking action against its employees till finalization of proceedings by the Committee, except in cases where disciplinary proceedings had or might be initiated or the services were otherwise liable to be terminated

High Court further directed that petitions be treated as representations deemed to be pending before Federal Government

Petition disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner, a contractual employee was denied for regularization due to addition of eligibility criteria for the post held by him

Criteria of eligibility for appointment was changed by Semester Implementation Committee of the University

Validity

Whole scheme of law dealt with the affairs of the University and relevant chapter in the calendar of the University provided a process of selection and allied matters in the University, Semester Implementation Committee figured nowhere

Only Syndicate, Senate and in some emergent situation the Vice-Chancellor were competent to take necessary steps to run the administrative affairs of the University

Addition in eligibility criteria for appointment of Lecturers recommended by Semester Implementation Committee, was thus, not sustainable.

Petitioner, a contractual employee was denied regularization due to addition of eligibility criteria for the post held by him

Criteria of eligibility for appointment was changed after the appointment of petitioner

Validity

Right had accrued to the petitioner to be regularized on the strength of eligibility criteria provided by Syndicate, which was in existence and holding the field at the relevant date (appointment)

Eligibility of the petitioner was to be adjudged on the touchstone of the criteria prevailing at the relevant date when he satisfactorily completed two years of service on contract

Subsequent change in eligibility criteria and that too by incompetent and irrelevant Committee which was alien to the scheme provided in the relevant rules could not be relied upon, particularly, in order to defeat a right which had already accrued to the petitioner

Principle of Locus poenitentiae would not permit even the competent authority to undo any appointment even if found defective after a long time and the incumbent would not liable to be removed from service

University was directed by the High Court to treat the petitioner as regular employee

Constitutional petition was allowed.

One could not be ousted (from employment) even if he was a contract employee unless the legal procedure was adopted.

One could not be ousted (from employment) even if he was a contract employee unless the legal procedure was adopted.

Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution challenging deductions made from monthly salary of an employee working for a corporation having non-statutory service rules

Employer establishment had non-statutory executive service rules, which were contractual in nature and lacked statutory protection

Writ could not be issued in such circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed as being not maintainable.

Services of an employee could be terminated without holding regular inquiry for the reason that competent authority could dispense withholding of such inquiry especially when allegation levelled against employee was proved on the basis of documentary evidence

Employee of corporation, in absence of violation of law or any statutory rule, could not press into service the constitutional or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service

Such employee could only claim damages against his wrongful dismissal or termination

High Court had rightly declined to interfere in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction for enforcement of contractual obligation

Leave to appeal was refused.

Plaintiffs were contract employees of Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC) and the Company had unilaterally changed the terms of contract by formulating new service policy, resultantly the services of plaintiffs were terminated

Plaintiffs sought suspension of termination letter on the plea of mala fide

Validity

Stand of KESC was not that it had simply repudiated the contracts of employment but it had attempted to alter the terms and conditions of service and then purported to exercise a contractual power in terms of varied contracts

If the contractual terms and conditions were governed by previous rules that could constitute an insuperable impediment in the way of releasing the plaintiffs from employment

Allegations of mala fides as to the manner in which the new policy of service was brought about carry weight and were an additional factor to be kept in mind while considering the question of interim relief

Prima facie it did not appear that new policy was enforced in a less than transparent manner and once it was in the field even in relation to the existing contracts with plaintiffs, was immediately implemented against them; as such the same had prima facie raised a serious question about bona fides of KESC and also whether the contractual power conferred by previous service rules was invoked in good faith and honestly or was a mala fide exercise of power conferred

Plaintiffs had made out a case for interim injunctive relief and operation of termination letters were suspended

High Court directed the KESC that any arrears of salaries and other emoluments, if not already dealt with in terms of pervious order would be paid in full to plaintiff

Application was allowed.