Regularization of service

Petitioner/National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was aggrieved of direction passed by High Court to regularize services of respondent/employee

Validity

Petitioner/NADRA provided job opportunities to disabled persons based on their ability and capacity to work

If a disabled person, initially appointed on a contractual basis, had performed his duties for a considerable period of time to the satisfaction of his superiors/department, then proprietary demanded that he should be regularized as a permanent employee so that he could reap all employment benefits, rather than being dragged on contractual basis perpetually

Respondent/employee was only three days short of completing required one year of service, but was denied regularization, while other similarly situated employees, who were short by a greater margin than the respondent/employee were accommodated as directed by High Court without any challenge to that judgment

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by High Court referring matter of respondents/contract employees to Scrutiny Committee

Validity

To accommodate and regularize services of contractual employees who gave their blood, toil, tears and sweat for many years, Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 was promulgated with fair intention

It was responsibility of Government to apply and allow benefit to all employees placed in equal and similar circumstances without any discrimination and not to pick and choose employees for conferring benefit or advantage of law

Implementation of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 has to be unbiased and non-discriminatory, rather it should be evenhanded, fair and square

When law giver enacts any beneficial law, it must be implemented across the board with assiduousness and meticulousness without any conservative or rigid approach

Implementation of beneficial statutes meant for civil servants and labourers are unnecessarily being delayed which forces deprived persons to knock the doors of Courts

If implementation is made in its letter and spirit within a reasonable period of time, then such course would decrease unnecessary burden on Court's docket

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter as High Court only held that respondents/contract employees were liable to be considered for regularization under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 and appointing authority was directed to send their cases for consideration to competent authority and till determination of eligibility, services of respondent/contract employees would not be terminated

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Petitioner/National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was aggrieved of direction passed by High Court to regularize services of respondent/employee

Validity

Petitioner/NADRA provided job opportunities to disabled persons based on their ability and capacity to work

If a disabled person, initially appointed on a contractual basis, had performed his duties for a considerable period of time to the satisfaction of his superiors/department, then proprietary demanded that he should be regularized as a permanent employee so that he could reap all employment benefits, rather than being dragged on contractual basis perpetually

Respondent/employee was only three days short of completing required one year of service, but was denied regularization, while other similarly situated employees, who were short by a greater margin than the respondent/employee were accommodated as directed by High Court without any challenge to that judgment

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by High Court referring matter of respondents/contract employees to Scrutiny Committee

Validity

To accommodate and regularize services of contractual employees who gave their blood, toil, tears and sweat for many years, Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 was promulgated with fair intention

It was responsibility of Government to apply and allow benefit to all employees placed in equal and similar circumstances without any discrimination and not to pick and choose employees for conferring benefit or advantage of law

Implementation of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 has to be unbiased and non-discriminatory, rather it should be evenhanded, fair and square

When law giver enacts any beneficial law, it must be implemented across the board with assiduousness and meticulousness without any conservative or rigid approach

Implementation of beneficial statutes meant for civil servants and labourers are unnecessarily being delayed which forces deprived persons to knock the doors of Courts

If implementation is made in its letter and spirit within a reasonable period of time, then such course would decrease unnecessary burden on Court's docket

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter as High Court only held that respondents/contract employees were liable to be considered for regularization under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 and appointing authority was directed to send their cases for consideration to competent authority and till determination of eligibility, services of respondent/contract employees would not be terminated

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

The challenge in the present Constitutional petition was "whether a daily wage employee, appointed without statutory backing or sanctioned post, could lawfully claim reinstatement and regularization of service on the basis of equality with another individual allegedly regularized under similar circumstances"

Held: Contention of the petitioner that since another employee had been regularized she too was entitled to similar treatment under Art. 25 of the Constitution was a flawed argument

Article 25 of the Constitution did not permit extension of benefits arising from illegal or irregular actions

Petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis without adherence to any codified recruitment procedure or advertisement for specific period

Appointments made on daily wages or ad hoc basis did not confer any legal right for regularization unless the appointment was supported by statutory rule or made against a sanctioned post following proper process

Present petition being without substance was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent / employees were holding posts of Security Guards, Fire Fighters and Supervisors who were not regularized in service by petitioners / employers

Both the fora of National Industrial Relation Commission allowed grievance petitions of respondents / employees and directed petitioners /employers to regularize their services

Plea raised by petitioners / employers was that provisions of Labour Laws were not applicable to respondents / employees

Validity

Employees holding posts of Security Guard, Fire Fighter and Supervisor are governed by Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Such workers / workmen can agitate their grievances under Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Regularization of respondents / employees holding posts of Supervisor, Security Guard and Fire Fighter would take effect from the date of promulgation of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, but for their pensionary and other long term benefits, they would be entitled from the date when they joined service

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent decisions passed by two fora below which were based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record

Both the fora had rightly applied relevant provisions of law

In order to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, which was discretionary and equitable in nature, the petitioners / employers were obliged to show any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity or irregularity in both the decisions but remained unable to pinpoint any such defects in the decisions

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

In assessment of suitability of a particular nature of job and its scope in the context of particular employer, Courts cannot prescribe eligibility or experience qualifications and work experience as these are matters of policy and are best left to the authorities

Setting the criteria of 2nd Division of academic qualification in the policy as well as advertisement related to the policy matter of government /department, therefore, Court could not interfere into it

It was not in the domain of the Courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular Policy was wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be drafted

Court could only interfere, if the policy framed was absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Constitution

It was for the Department to decide how and in what manner the reservations should be made and such a policy decision normally would not be open to challenge subject to its passing the test of reasonableness

Petitioners, in spite of having 3rd Division in academic qualification, were duly appointed for a period of five years who performed their duties and their tenure of further extension of one year had also expired

High Court declined to interfere with order passed by authorities which otherwise had been passed aptly

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / Authority was aggrieved of orders passed by Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal in favour of respondents / employees

Validity

High Court in exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution could be regarded as on a higher pedestal as against other ordinary statutory jurisdiction

Constitutional provision was not designed to empower High Court to interfere with decisions of Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, mainly because in its opinion the decision was wrong

High Court could not interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with findings of facts recorded by competent Court, tribunals or authorities unless such findings were result of misreading and non-reading of material evidence, or were based on no evidence amounting to an error of law and justified rather called for interference

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two forums below, as no case for any exception was made out by the petitioner/ Authority

Constitutional petition were 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.

Service of petitioner had not been regularized for the reasons that development projects had their own rules/regulations to run their affairs and were funded according to the ground realities and on need to need basis

Service of petitioner having been hired against a development project, there was no scope for regularization

Petitioner remained quiet for a period of 24 years

Court could not come in the aid of an indolent

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Direction in similar nature of cases had already been issued to the authorities to regularize the services of contract employees in the same department

Petitioners were to be treated equally having same set of circumstances

Authorities were directed to regularize the services of petitioners without any further delay

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought regularization of his services and assailed in writ jurisdiction the decision of his exclusion from shortlisted candidates for the post of Lecturer-BS-18

Validity

Petitioner was appointed as a visiting faculty member and his contract was extended from time to time

Service of petitioner suffered intermittence at various times

Appointees of semester contract including the petitioner were appointed for a short term in order to cover shortage of faculty who were on study leave for higher studies and such appointment could not confer any vested right of regularization to the petitioner

Petitioner had concealed actual facts of the case, thus he had not come to the Court with clean hands

Petitioner was out of eligibility criteria set out by the Higher Education Commission (HEC)

Qualification set by HEC for appointment of Lecturer was M.Phil/MS or equivalent degree (18 years), whereas the petitioner's degree was equivalent to 17 years schooling, thus the petitioner was not eligible for the post of lecturer under the decision of HEC and Chief Court could not force HEC or the University to alter its decision only for a single person without justification

Writ petitions were dismissed.

Law is required under Art.240 of the Constitution, which should provide for such appointment to civil service of the Federation or civil service of Province.

Method of appointment was prescribed under R.10 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, by initial recruitment

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 nowhere provided that appointment to a civil service could be made by or through some agency or private limited company or any other entity

Powers of government to devolve such authority to any other private entity was not provided or reserved under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989

Petitioners were appointed for Peoples' Primary Health Initiative Program under the umbrella of Sarhad Rural Support Program

Such appointments were not appointments made in service of Province

Government did not provide any such authorization under the contract entered with Sarhad Rural Support Program for implementation of Peoples' Primary Health Initiative Program

High Court declined to interfere in the matter of regularization of petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Services and General Administration Department (Regulations Wing) issued notification whereby regularization of employees in BPS-1 to 15 recruited on contract basis under the provisions of Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, was ordered

Respondents approached High Court through constitutional petitions seeking direction to the appellants to regularize them

Constitutional petitions were allowed

Validity

Respondents were employees of the appellants, who were medical and health institutions the administration and management of which vested in the Board appointed by the Government in the light of Ss.5 & 6 of Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act, 2003

Rule 10 of the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Rules, 2003, laid down two kinds of categories of the employees i.e. (a) government employees appointed to an institution by transfer or promotion, who shall be subject to all relevant rules of the government and (b) employees in service of the institution appointed on contract

Respondents were not appointed under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, as such, the regularization notification was not attracted to their case

Appeals were allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances.

Employee cannot claim regularization of the service as his vested right.

Petitioners were appointed by Board of Revenue as Assistant Directors Land Records but their services were not regularized

Validity

Prior to transfer of Punjab Land Revenue Authority (PLRA), terms and conditions of petitioners were governed under Punjab Directorate of Land Records Posts Service Rules, 2010, which were further amended in year 2016, framed under statutory provision of S. 23 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974

Such rules could not be termed as non-statutory

Petitioners were adjusted in PLRA in the light of S.31(f) of Punjab Land Records Authority Act, 2017

In cases where contract employees were appointed on recommendation of Punjab Public Service Commission, it was duty of the department to put up their cases before Appointing Authority for regularization

In respect of petitioners, Appointing Authority was Member (Revenue) / Senior Member Board of Revenue

Appointment letters were issued in favour of petitioners by Directorate of Land Records, Board of Revenue

Incumbent upon Member (Revenue) / Senior Member Board of Revenue to regularize services of petitioners in the light of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018

High Court directed the authorities to place case of petitioners and other selectees, who were in service, before Senior Member Board of Revenue to regularize services of petitioners and similarly placed person

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners put much emphasis on the ground that they were entitled to regularization of their services as the authorities had regularized similarly placed persons who were appointed on daily wages/contract basis

Stance of authorities was that the petitioners were not entitled to regularization as the previous daily wages/contract employees were regularized after scrutinizing each and every case while the petitioners did not fall within the ambit of prescribed criteria

Validity

Petitioners, at the time of joining, had accepted all the terms and conditions of their contract employment and could not resile from the same at a belated stage

Perusal of prescribed criteria revealed that a person who was appointed to a post on work charge/daily wages must have one-year complete satisfactory service, must fulfil the qualification/experience and age limit as per the Regulations and the post for which he applied must exist in the budget/the Regulations

Record attached by the authorities revealed that amongst the petitioners, some did not fulfil the requirement of age limit, while others' work was not satisfactory and there was also service break in their employment

Petitioners did not fulfil the criterion for the regularization of their service and it could not be said that the respondents had treated them indifferently or given discriminatory treatment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

As a result, the case of petitioner's husband was submitted before the District Education Officer but prior to approval of the matter by the Competent Authority, husband of the petitioner died

Notification regarding regularization of services of certain ESEs was issued but name of the petitioner's husband was missing

District Education Officer through impugned letter declined the request of petitioner on the ground that since her husband had died during collection of data, he was not entitled for regularization

Validity

Prior to death of petitioner's husband, he was found to be fit for regularization but the matter could not be decided by District Education Officer for which husband of petitioner could not be held responsible

Nobody could be prejudiced due to the act of the public functionaries and a person who was found eligible for any benefit was entitled to it from the date when the same accrued to him

Though other terms and conditions of the service of a civil servant abated upon his death but not the peculiar benefits to which the legal heirs would become entitled

Constitutional petition was accepted.

Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court on the ground that his wrongful termination deprived him from being regularized along with other similarly placed employees and his representation in that regard was wrongly rejected

Validity

Petitioner had assailed the order of his termination before the Service Tribunal by filing appeal and had sought reinstatement into service, which appeal was partially allowed

While the words stigmatizing the petitioner were deleted but his termination was never set aside

Judgment of the Service Tribunal had attained finality

Regularization could not be directed without reinstatement, which would otherwise imply the High Court sitting as an appellate forum of the Service Tribunal, which the Constitution debarred

Ad hoc employee had neither the right to hold the post beyond the period for which he was appointed nor the government had a right to continue with such ad hoc appointee for a long period

Moreso, when the petitioner had not been in ad hoc employment even for a year let alone for a long time creating any hope or legitimate expectation of retention, then he could not be considered for regularization

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.

Petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis and later on the competent authority issued a notification in the year 2015 whereby the project, in which the petitioners were employed, was brought on normal budget meaning thereby that the services of petitioners were converted to regular employees

Department, however, did not implement the notification which prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court through a writ petition wherein a specific direction was given to the department to implement the notification

Petitioners were ultimately adjusted in regular service but with effect from 2018

Petitioners, through the present petition, sought calculation of their salary and other emoluments with effect from the year 2015

Validity

Referred notification for its all practical purpose was beneficial to the extent of rights of the petitioners, hence, the petitioners were entitled to receive benefits of notification from the date of issuance of the same

Writ petition was accepted.

Grievance of petitioner was that duration of his service as daily wager was not considered for the purposes of pension benefits

Validity

Petitioner was first appointed in year, 2000 on daily wages basis and he continuously serviced as such for nine years and then his daily wages employment was converted into regular service with effect from 1-6-2009

Previous service of petitioner was countable according to Arts. 358 & 371-A of Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.), to his regular service for the purpose of pensionary and other fringe benefits

High Court directed the authorities to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular PG-1 for the purpose of pension and other allied pensionary benefits

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 129, 199 & 247(4) & (5) [as amended by Constitutional (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act (XXXVII of 2018)]

Regularization of service

Schools in erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Area

Political Agent, status of

Effect of repeal

Petitioners were teachers who sought their regularization in service after abolition of Federally Administered Tribal Area vide 25th Constitutional Amendment and inclusion of Area in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province

Validity

Political Agent mainly derived its existence and authority from Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901

With repeal of Art. 247 from the Constitution, Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 was deemed to have been repealed thereby

With unqualified repeal, the office of Political Agent seized to exist and no other office or officer could claim any legacy of that office as no such law provided for the same

Office of Political Agent was mummified and laid to rest in the cemetery of history along with all its belongings leaving no legacy for anyone else to utilize

Deputy Commissioner was not successor of Political Agent and he was never been a Chairman of Board of Directors of the schools nor was substituted as member of Board of Governors or School Management Board

Besides Political Agent, other members of Board of Directors and Board of Governors had also lost its existence with promulgation of 25th Constitutional Amendment

With repeal of Art.247 from the Constitution, without providing for any saving clause, all Regulations promulgated by President of Pakistan under Art. 247(5) of the Constitution or by Governor under Art. 247(4) of the Constitution or before enactment of the Constitution, seized to exist

As corollary of such development, executive authority also shifted its abode from Governor to Provincial Government which included Chief Minister and Provincial Cabinet, according to Art.129 of the Constitution

Such had become responsibility of Provincial Government to regulate affairs of schools in question in similar other educational institutions existing in Federally Administered Tribal Areas

Provincial Government was duty bound to take interim measures in respect of schools and colleges as well as to take permanent steps for smooth running of institutions in question

High Court directed to reinstate petitioner in service as her termination was without lawful authority and High Court restrained the authorities from initiation of process of recruitment as the process was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and directed Provincial Government to take steps on urgent basis for providing legal framework for schools in question along with other similar schools and colleges situated in Federally Administered Tribal Area

High Court directed Provincial Government to constitute ad hoc Board of Directors till constitution of permanent Board of Directors and other necessary regulatory bodies according to legal framework to be provided by Government

High Court directed Government to notify Principal till appointment of another Principal by Government after giving proper legal framework

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Department was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the judgment passed in the earlier constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Department refused to regularize the employee on the ground that qualification for the post of Leady Health Visitor was matriculation with science subjects whereas she had passed her matriculation examination in subjects of arts

Validity

Petitioner had passed Lady Health Visitor examination from Nursing Examination Board

Candidates having matriculation with subjects of arts were eligible to get admission in the Nursing and Lady Health Visitor examination

Certificate of petitioner of passing examination of Lady Health Visitors was valid, authentic and was issued in accordance with rules and policy in vague

Department had amended rules and matriculation with science subjects had been declared compulsory for admission in the Nursing or Lady Health Visitor examinations

Amendment in rules made by the authorities had not invalidated previous degrees/certificates obtained by the candidates having passed matriculation with subjects of arts

Lady Health Visitor Examination Certificate of employee could not be held inoperative or incompetent, in circumstances

Amended criteria/policy of matriculation with science subjects could not be stretched retrospectively to wash away the rights of candidates who were eligible in the past

Lady Health Visitors who had Lady Health Visitor Examination Certificate with matriculation in subjects of arts had been appointed in the Health Department in the past

Petitioner had been appointed by Sarhad Rural Support Programme as Lady Health Visitor to perform duties in Basic Health Units

Sarhad Rural Support Programme was working under the Provincial Government under an agreement

Petitioner was employee of Health Department and she had served as Lady Health Visitor in the Government Basic Health Units which was temporarily given under the control of Sarhad Rural Support Programme

Provincial Government had taken back the administrative control of Basic Health Units and employees were needed there to provide health services

Petitioner was performing duties of permanent nature in the Government Basic Health Units and she was being paid through an outsource organization

Relationship of employee and employer existed between the parties

Sarhad Rural Support Programme had been put to an end and Health Department had taken over the administrative control of Basic Health Units all over the Province

Authorities had adjusted Primary Health Care Technician against existing regular vacancy on the basis of her satisfactory performance report

Petitioner could not be treated apart in circumstances

New vacancies had been created for the purpose of fresh appointments

Services of petitioner had been terminated without any notice who had nine years service at her credit

Authorities were directed to appoint the petitioner as Lady Health Visitor on regular basis

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention of employees was that they were entitled for regularization of their service from the date of their initial appointment

Validity

Employees had been serving in the Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency under the administrative control of Provincial Government for the last thirteen years continuously but without any job security

Nature of duties performed by the Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency employees was permanent

Services of employees had become matured and they had earned entitlement for regularization of their services

Regularization of employees did not require any statutory rules rather same did depend on the length of their services

Employees had become overage to get the job anywhere

Employees had requisite qualification for the posts and they had been appointed in due course of law

Employees had right to continue against the posts and they were entitled for their regularization in circumstances

Employees had been appointed in the project which was still continuing and they were performing duties of perpetual nature

Authorities were directed to regularize the services of petitioners on their existing posts with notional increase in their pay from the date of their first appointment, however, they would not be entitled to arrears in terms of pay

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Where statutory rules provided for a power to appoint ad hoc employees for a period not exceeding one year and the authority granted extensions for several years, High Court observed that such extension in the tenure of service undeniably created a legitimate expectancy in their minds with reference to their retention in the service on regular basis

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.

Contract of petitioners-employees was not extended by the University and applications were invited for appointment on regular basis

Contention of petitioners was that they were entitled for regularization of their service

Validity

Contracts of petitioners issued by Vice Chancellor had not been submitted to the Syndicate for approval

Powers of Vice Chancellor were supposed to be exercised for plugging the gaps in running of the affairs of the University for a short time

Temporary steps of Vice Chancellor could not be converted into permanent one through constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Vice Chancellor was not competent to continue contract appointments beyond one year

Power of appointment to posts in BPS-17 or above did lie with the Syndicate of the University

Vice Chancellor could make permanent appointments to the posts in BPS-1 to 16

Vice Chancellor of the University could not extend the contracts of petitioners beyond the period of one year

Orders made under Regln. 11(5)(c) of University of Swat Regulations, 2010, did not give any right to the petitioners to be regularized

University was a body which was chartered by or under a Statute or other instrument having force of law

Universities had not been established under the force of law but were regulated by law either primary or through subordinate legislation

Legislation of University did provide for the method of recruitment of officers both in teaching cadre as well as in administrative cadre

When entry into a service had been regulated by a Statute or rules framed thereunder then entry to the said service could not be allowed otherwise than as provided by law

Writ could only be issued by High Court in aid of law and not otherwise

Where services of employees were regulated by a Statute or statutory rules then regularization of employee could only be ordered when it was so provided under the law or rules having force of law or a case of discriminatory treatment had been made out

Petitioners had failed to establish a case under University of Swat Regulations, 2010, or any other law for their regularization

University was autonomous body having its independent regulatory framework and governance bodies

Regularization of employees of other Universities could not be treated as sufficient for making out a case for discriminatory treatment

Services of petitioners were not regulated by any Statute, Regulation or any statutory rules

Services of employees were regulated by the terms and conditions of the contracts which had been signed by them with the University

Contract appointments did not clothe the petitioners with a right of regular appointment, in circumstances

Higher Education Commission had enhanced the eligibility criteria for appointment of lectures

Said criteria had been adopted and applied by the University in the appointments of teaching staff

Criteria determined by the Higher Education Commission was to be applied to all the appointments in the University despite the fact that employee might be serving on contract basis earlier

Constitutional petition being non-maintainable was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was doing manual and clerical work against permanent post with Local Government for almost 22 years as daily wager

Petitioner had attained status of permanent employee under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Post against which petitioner was performing his duties was not duly advertised did not matter, as no such policy or rules were placed on record prevailing in year 1999, according to which daily wager could only be hired after advertisement

No pre-condition existed as prescribed under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for regularization of service of an employee who performed his service for almost 22 years against permanent post

High Court set aside order passed by authorities as he was deemed to be regularized in view of the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners (ex-Army personnel) were employed as constables in Provincial police in their respective districts on contract basis

Provincial government vide notification had directed regularization of services of all the contract employees except the petitioners (police officials)

Provincial government contended that the said notification was not applicable to the petitioners as they being contract employees had no right of regular appointment

Validity

Said notification showed that its benefit was extended to various departments of provincial government and if the intention of the competent authority was to exclude the provincial police from it then the same might have been specifically incorporated in the said notification

Pursuant to satisfactory performance of the petitioners , their contract had been extended from time to time which was sufficient to believe that there was nothing adverse on their part

Government notification for regularization of services of all the contract employees was issued without any distinction, therefore, employees of one particular class/department could not be deprived of getting the benefits of said notification merely at the whims or caprice of the authority at the helm of affairs

Services of some of equally placed colleagues of the petitioners had already been regularized , therefore, the petitioners were also entitled to get the said benefit

High Court deprecated that the tendency of running the affairs of institutions on day to day basis and exploiting services of the employees for an indefinite period

Constitutional petitions were allowed.

Contention / objection of the Provincial Government was that after having accepted terms and conditions of their contract, petitioners/contract employees were barred to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Held, that petitioners could not be non-suited only on the basis of said contention

Employees, after having been selected for a promised post, were offered the contract instead

In view of the rate of unemployment in the country, petitioners had no option but to sign the contract in order to avoid disappointment

Such a contract could not be an obstructive instrument in their way of regularization.

Petitioner Department impugned order of High Court whereby Constitutional petition of respondent employees was allowed, and petitioner Department was directed to place cases of respondents before Board for regularization of service and restrained Department from filling posts of respondents till such time regularization was decided

Validity

Respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis upon relaxation of settled mode of law and had no rightful claim for extension or regularization of services without following prescribed policy

Ad-hoc appointees could not be regularized as they had neither any right to hold such post beyond prescribed period nor Government owed any obligation to maintain continuity in their service for an unlimited period

Impugned order was therefore liable to be set aside

Intra-court appeal was allowed, accordingly.

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.

Summary for regularization of services of petitioners had been regretted by the Finance Department and said "regretting order" had not been challenged by the petitioners before any forum

Petitioners could not be ordered to be taken back in service on regular basis with all back benefits by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Regularization of employees was not part of terms and conditions of service of employees for which statutory rules were required but it would depend upon the length of service

Petitioners were entitled to similar treatment which had been extended to their similarly placed colleagues for their regularization

Company could not act whimsically while making fresh appointments against the posts already held by the petitioners who had been appointed in a transparent manner

Employees had served the Company for a long period and refusal to regularize them was unjustified and against principles of natural justice and equity

Petitioners were entitled to the benefit contained in Office Memorandum dated 11-05-2017

Employees having satisfactory performance should have been considered for regularization by the employer Company

Company was directed to consider the employees for regularization of their service

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was work charge employee and Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 was not applicable to the present case

Petitioner had accepted the contingent terms of service and he could not blow hot and cold in the same breath to claim regularization of his service

Contingent/work charged service could not be converted into regular service

Department had rightly declined the regularization of service of the petitioner, in circumstances

Petitioner had failed to make out his case for regularization of his service

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner-employee was appointed on daily wages basis and in compliance of order of Supreme Court his service was regularized with effect from the date of his first appointment

Contention of employee was that he was entitled for pensionary benefits after including period of daily wages employment in his regular service

Validity

Right to claim pension was a right connected with the tenure of service which had been served by an employee in order to make him eligible for pension

Rendering of qualifying service was a prerequisite for claiming pension

Unless an employee had rendered minimum qualifying service he could not become entitled to claim superannuation pension or any other privilege that was attached with pensionary rights

Employee had twenty eight years' service to his credit which was qualifying length of service for superannuation pension

Contingent period of petitioner had already been brought on normal budget by regularizing his previous service by the order of Supreme Court which had entitled him to entire twenty eight years' service benefits

If an employee, who during the period of probationary/ad-hoc service was eligible to be confirmed against any post, had retired from service before being confirmed then he should not merely for such retirement be refused confirmation to such post or any benefit accrued therefrom

Employee was appointed on daily wages basis against a substantive post and his daily wages employment had been converted into regular service with retrospective effect

Previous service of employee was countable to his regular service for the purpose of service/pensionary benefits and other fringe benefits, in circumstances

Petitioner was entitled to claim entire twenty eight years' service/pensionary dues by counting his previous service for the purpose of retiring/superannuation benefits

Respondents were directed to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Contention of petitioners was that similar placed employees had already been regularized by the Bank but they had been deprived of their legal rights

Validity

Petitioners were performing their duties on different positions in the Bank since their appointments without any break or discontinuation

Bank was being benefited from the labour, blood and sweat of the employees

Petitioners had contributed towards the prosperity and progress of the Bank

Employees had not been considered for regularization by the Bank

Right to life did include the right to livelihood and same could not hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority

Service of an employee could be brought to an end but in accordance with law

Nothing was on record as to why petitioners had not been regularized

Status of present employees was identical to those employees whose cases had been allowed by the Supreme Court

Where matter had been settled once for all then Bank/employers were supposed to treat its similarly placed employees on the same footing without compelling them to approach the Court of law

Bank could not be allowed to discriminate the petitioners in violation of judgment of Supreme Court

Bank was directed to regularize the employees against their respective posts with effect from the date they had approached through constitutional petition

Petitioners would be entitled for pensionary benefits if any from the date of their initial appointments

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioners/employees had been appointed under due process of law on fixed pay for a contract period of two years or till the completion of project

Project was still continuing and petitioners/employees had been serving with unblemished service record

Employees were serving for the last twelve years without any job security

Employees had become overage to get the job anywhere else, they having requisite qualification for the post in question, had right to continue against the same

Employees could not be termed as "retained employees" against "retained fee"

Services of employees had matured and they were entitled for regularization

Regularization of employees did not require any statutory rules rather same would depend on the length of their service

High Court directed for regularization of service of employees from the date of their first appointment and they would be entitled to national increase of their pay from the date of their appointment without any arrears and their past service was to be computed towards their pensionary benefits

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Employees had been performing their duties and after expiry of initial period of their service the authorities (employer) had extended the period for further 89 days

Employees had not been regularized on the ground that they were contingent paid staff and their services could not be regularized notwithstanding the availability of sanctioned posts and the budget thereof

Practice of continuous service on temporary/contract/daily wages/contingent paid staff basis for long period of time was deprecated

Petitioners were similarly placed with the employees of the Board and entitled to the same treatment as extended to them

Authorities were directed to regularize the services of petitioners in accordance with law from the date of their initial appointment

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Services of petitioners could not be counted towards seniority, promotion and pension and they could not be treated as civil servants

Life of project, in the present case, had expired and it had not been taken on regular budget

Contract appointment would terminate on the expiry of contract period or any extended period on the choice of employer or appointing authority

Such appointment did not per se create any vested right

Petitioners had no vested right for regularization of their services

High Court could not issue any direction to the Government or other statutory functionary to do a particular act unless it was their statutory or legal obligation to do the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Question before High Court was whether "Labour Court constituted under Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matter of regularization of service of an employee of Government Department, who in the present case, was employed as Family Helper with Provincial Population Welfare Department"

Held, that employee in present case, admittedly worked for a government department which was not a commercial establishment either under Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or under Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010

Section 1(3)(b) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 provided that same shall not apply to person employed in administration of state and therefore, Labour Court could not adjudicate upon the matter

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner, an employee of Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design, impugned order whereby probationary period of his employment was extended, and he was not considered for regularization of service, and subsequently his services were dispensed with

Validity

Per Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Statutes 2012; petitioner had already completed the probationary period

While a competent authority considering confirmation / regularization of an employee could gauge his / her output during probationary period but said authority could not be given unbridled powers by cherry-picking some employees, whose probationary period was terminated, while depriving others, like petitioner, from confirmation despite passage of three years

High Court held that mala fide on part of Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design vis-à-vis with matter of confirmation of service of petitioner was floating on surface, and impugned orders were set aside

High Court directed Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design Act to put up matter of petitioner's confirmation with Senate of "Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design" with direction to decide same afresh with specific reference to the defects apparent in Annual Confidential Report

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Contention of petitioners-employees was that they were entitled to be regularized under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018

Validity

Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 was applicable to those persons who had completed three years continuous service under contract before or after its enactment

Regularization of such employee who was eligible to be appointed on contract under relevant law or policy should be made through appointment in accordance with Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018

Employees who had fulfilled conditions under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 were entitled for regularization

Petitioners had completed three years of continuous service on contract and Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 was applicable to them

Eligibility for the post in question and fulfillment of preconditions should be determined under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018

Section 3 of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 did protect the appointments on contract made immediately before commencement of the Act

If contract employee had not opted against regularization within sixty days then he should be deemed to have opted for the same

Competent authority after expiry of sixty days from commencement of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 was bound to submit case of contract employee for regularization either before Scrutiny Committee or before Commission

Contract employee who had been appointed on the recommendations of Commission should be regularized by the appointing authority without referring his case to the Commission

Scrutiny Committee should forward its recommendations to the appointing authority after verification of academic record and scrutinizing the relevant record to determine whether the conditions stipulated in S.3(2) of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 had been fulfilled

Contract employee who had fulfilled the conditions to the satisfaction of Scrutiny Committee or Commission was entitled to be regularized under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 with immediate effect

Employee so regularized should be governed under Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder

Petitioners were eligible to be considered for regularization under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018

Appointing authority was directed by the High Court to send the cases of petitioners to the Commission if appointment against the posts in question did fall within the purview of Commission otherwise their cases for determination of eligibility be placed before the Scrutiny Committee

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Colleagues of petitioners had been regularized in service and there was no allegation/complaint with regard to official duties of petitioners

Authorities had been extending period of contract of employees from time to time which had created a legitimate expectancy in their mind with regard to their retention in service on regular basis

Person who had already served ten years in the government institution, if thrown out from the service, would be deprived of any service in any of the institutions under the government due to over age

Petitioners had been discriminated as their co-employees had already been regularized in service

Case of petitioners was at par with other colleagues who had been regularized

Petitioners were not to be pushed back to the authority which had already refused to accede to their genuine request

Act of authority to direct the petitioners to apply for any post as and when advertised was against the substantial justice

Technicality of law and rule should not operate as an absolute bar in the way of Court as preference in this regard would defeat the substantial justice

Extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could be exercised with compassion and Court could not disregard the fact that non-regularization of services of petitioners was an act violative of right of livelihood

Petitioners were eligible for the posts in question

Public functionaries were to act fairly, justly and without discrimination

Petitioners were also entitled for the same treatment which had been given to their colleagues

Authorities were directed to reinstate the services of petitioners and regularize the same with immediate effect

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Court could only direct that a candidate should be considered for regularization but it could not order for regularization of person against post that had not been sanctioned and was not a permanent post

Impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge of High Court was set aside

Intra court appeal was allowed in circumstances.