Contract employee

Respondent / contract employee assailed advertisement issued by appellant / Information Commission for recruitment of lower division clerk

Judge in Chambers of High Court allowed Constitutional petition and directed appellant / Commission to proceed in accordance with law

Validity

Respondent was a contractual employee and was 33 years old, well beyond the minimum age limit of 30 years prescribed in the advertisement

Person who was statutorily ineligible to participate in a process could not suffer any legal injury from the process

Respondent / contract employee by his own ineligibility, placed himself outside the class of individuals who could challenge the recruitment

Constitutional petition was not a bona fide exercise of rights but an attempt to obstruct a lawful process by a person lacking any qualifying right

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution could not entertain petition by a person lacking legal standing

Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court; resultantly the petition filed by respondent / contract employee was dismissed

Division Bench of High Court directed appellant / Information Commission to complete recruitment process in accordance with ESTA Code and restored the advertisement in question

Division Bench of High Court further directed appellant / Information Commission to frame its Recruitment Rules under the relevant provision of Right of Access to Information Act, 2017

Intra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

High Court has no jurisdiction to alter or amend the terms and conditions of contract employees or to grant an extension of service on its own accord in absence of any statutory instrument

Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioners were initially appointed on contractual basis in the respondent university and were allowed extension from time to time

Petitioner claimed regularization on their respective posts from the date of their initial appointments

It was the case of the petitioners that they had gained sufficient experience and served for a long duration as such they had a right to be regularized

Held: There were no rules, policy or regulations under which the petitioner could claim regularization in service

The respondent university decided to terminate their services in view of their contracts therefore High Court could not force the respondent university to take the petitioners into employment when at the time of their appointments they were made known the terms and conditions of their service

Similarly, as per the relevant provisions i.e. Ss. 11(5)(c) & 11(5)(e) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012 which were discussed by the Supreme Court in the case reported as '2022 PLC (C.S.) 85', the contractual employees had no vested right to regularization and by mere efflux of time an employee could not claim regularization and knock on the door of the High Court for the same

Moreover, High Court had no jurisdiction to alter or amend the terms and conditions of the contract employees or to allow them extension of its own

Importantly, in the absence of any statutory instrument the High Court could not allow regularization on its own to the petitioners

Constitutional petitions having no merit, were dismissed, in circumstances.

Clause 4, Para-XVII sub-clause (ii) of the Punjab Government Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, supplies safeguards against unreasonable and arbitrary terminations of the contract employees

Although in cases of willful absence from duty, the process of regular inquiry may be dispensed with, however each case has its own merits

Facts of the present case were such that mere allegation of willful absence from duty could not have been proved without holding a proper inquiry as it was the case of the petitioner that he was unlawfully abducted and remained a victim of enforced disappearance

Such assertions of the petitioner were not only supported by sufficient material appended with the petition but it was also evident from the termination order that the respondents somehow believed the confinement of the petitioner but for strange circuitous reasons, the same had been used as a basis to cast negative aspersions on the conduct of not only the petitioner but also his family

Authority while adjudicating a case on the basis of show cause notice has to confine itself within the allegations of show cause notice and rendering any findings or forming basis of the final order on elements beyond the allegations/charges of show cause notice is not sustainable under the law

From the contents of show cause notice, proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof and the termination order, the only ineluctable conclusion emerged that neither the show cause notice and the proceedings in furtherance thereof were tenable in law nor the termination order was sustainable on any of tests of due process in terms of Arts. 4 & 10A of the Constitution.

Existence of policy of the Government to make appointment under R. 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, (Rules) on regular basis

Termination from service after serving one month's notice relinquishing the regular inquiry already initiated against the employee

Appeal preferred by the employee was accepted and he was reinstated, but subsequently the order of his reinstatement was withheld on the ground that his case being covered under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, he could not be reinstated after his termination

Validity

Once the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the respondent-department was estopped from taking a somersault and invoking the clauses pertaining to termination of contractual appointment by serving one month's notice

In terms of Notification/Policy of the Government, petitioner was to be appointed on regular basis since date of his induction, thus, he was entitled to regular inquiry

Action of the respondent-department in first denying the regular appointment to the petitioner on the basis of R. 17-A of the Rules and then not proceeding further in terms of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, violated due process rights of the petitioner, thus, respondent-department through the reinstatement order of the petitioner rightly treated appointment of the petitioner as regular by operation of the Notification whereas the Revisional Authority had taken jaundiced view of the matter by not appreciating such aspect of the matter while passing the order, which could not be sustained

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Respondent / plaintiff, under S. 2(d) of Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, could not have approached the Authority and had correctly invoked jurisdiction of Civil Court

Lower Appellate Court and Trial Court did not examine terms of contract between respective parties and had placed undue reliance on minutes of meeting of Board of directors

Provision of Regln. 1(3) of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1984, had restricted its applicability to contractual employees

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Contention of petitioner was that he was treated discriminately and was not being regularized in disregard of the undertaking given before the court

Validity

Respondents on various occasions made statements before the Court that the petitioner's services should be regularized, however, the needful had not been done on one pretext or the other

Petition was filed in 2018 and more than six years had passed; he had been roaming from pillar to post to achieve his legitimate right, accrued pursuant to the undertaking and assurance by the respondents

When an order is passed, direction given or process issued by a court on the basis of an undertaking, the person in whose favour such assurance is given acquires a valuable right and the person(s) who violate such orders make themselves liable for prosecution for contempt in terms of Art.204 of the Constitution

High Court, to overcome the miseries and agonies suffered by the petitioner, converted the contempt application into one under S. 151, C.P.C. and directed respondents to regularize petitioner's services as per their undertaking

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner sought reinstatement and regularization of his services against the post of Family Welfare Assistant (Male) from the date of his initial appointment on the analogy of regularization of the post of Family Welfare Assistant (Female) (BPS-05) in compliance with the order of High Court and summary approved by the Chief Minister Sindh

Held, that process of regularization is a policy matter and the prerogative of the Executive and the decision had already been taken, which was not open to interference by High Court as earlier petition was disposed of and subsequently scrutiny was made and finally the respondents discontinued the service of the petitioner on the ground that he gained another employment during subsistence of his service in the respondent department, thus, the petitioner did not have any vested right to seek reinstatement and regularization in service

Contract employee cannot claim any vested right, even for regularization of service

Policy decision of the Government of Sindh regarding the regularization of the employees of the respondent department or otherwise could not be challenged in the writ jurisdiction of High Court on the purported plea of discrimination, when Art.25 of the Constitution itself provides a provision for such discrimination on the principle of reasonable classification, however, where a person gains or is granted a benefit illegally, other persons cannot plead, nor can the Court accept such a plea that the same benefit must be allowed to them also in violation of law

Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

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

Petitioner had challenged the orders of his termination and dismissal of his application of re-instatement after lapse of almost two years, five months and nineteen days without explaining any convincing reasonable cause for the inordinate delay, as such principle of laches was applicable in the present case as three months' time was considered reasonable for a party to assail an adverse order in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Law helps the vigilant and not the indolent

Constitutional petition was dismissed , in circumstances.

Lady Health Worker, who was initially appointed on contract basis, filed constitutional petition for her appointment on the vacant post of Lady Health Worker (BPS-5) in light of Office Memorandum dated 16-01-2018 ('Memorandum'), which was accepted while passing directions to the Department to conduct her skill test only, if required for relevant post

Department filed civil petition seeking leave to appeal contending that by subsequent Office Corrigendum, a schedule had been announced for conducting screen-test/interview for various posts for the purpose of selecting most eligible candidates by observing the merit policy

Validity

Office Memorandum dated 16-01-2018 ('Memorandum') while settling a mechanism to ensure merit based recruitment in the various department, inter alia, envisaged that all the Administrative departments would give preference to the contingent employees for their appointments against the vacant posts and no screening test for appointment on posts from BPS-01 to BPS-05 would be conducted

Respondent was, admittedly, a contract employee (BPS-05), who was performing her duties to the satisfaction of the competent authority and there was no complaint against her, thus her case fell within the ambit of the Memorandum

Petitioners/Department were legally bound, while implementing the policy having been introduced in the Memorandum, to conduct only skill test of the respondent, if required for the said post

Subsequent office corrigendum, whereby the petitioners / Department announced the schedule for conducting screening test / interview for the posts from BPS-01 to BPS-O5, was in violation of the Memorandum wherein a mechanism to ensure merit based recruitments in various government departments had already been introduced

Act of the petitioners/department was in violation of the principle of natural justice and against the policy of Memorandum whereby the services of low paid poor employees belonging to downtrodden areas were not regularized without disclosing any cogent reason

Chief Court, keeping in view lengthy services of the respondent as lady Health Worker on contract , had rightly accepted her constitutional petition directing the petitioners / department to conduct her skill test only, if required

Civil petition for grant of appeal filed by the petitioners/Department was declined, in circumstances.

Petitioner was appointed to the post of lecturer on contract basis for a period of five years and the period had expired, therefore, indulgence in the matter was uncalled for

Contract employee was debarred from approaching High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Only remedy available to contract employee was to file suit for damages alleging breach of contract

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Authorities could not be directed to extend his contract as they were in a better position to decide as to whether service of an employee was further required or not

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Date of regularization of contract employees was the date of their regularization under the relevant Regularization Policy.

Held, that language of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the 2009 Act') overrode such contractual disclaimers and if it was shown that a person fell within the purview of the 2009 Act and fulfilled the pre-conditions (for regularization provided under S. 3 of the 2009 Act), he could seek regularization.

Respondent was employed on contract basis as an Electrician in the Benevolent Fund Cell of Provincial Administration Department, and his contract was extended from time to time

Other contract employees, except the respondent, were regularized in service under S. 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the 2009 Act')

Respondent assailed the issue through a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was allowed and directions were given to regularize the services of the respondent

Held, that perusal of the appointment order of respondent showed that it was signed by the Secretary to the Provincial Government, Administration Department, Benevolent Fund Cell

Said Secretary was a member of the Board of Management constituted by the Provincial Chief Secretary

Respondent was appointed by the Provincial Government on contract and was an employee for the purposes of S. 2(b) of the 2009 Act

Respondent also fulfilled all the pre-conditions for regularization provided under S. 3 of the 2009 Act

Direction of the High Court to regularize the respondent was based on the correct legal and factual position

Appeal was dismissed.

Held, that language of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the 2009 Act') overrode such contractual disclaimers and if it was shown that a person fell within the purview of the 2009 Act and fulfilled the pre-conditions (for regularization provided under S. 3 of the 2009 Act), he could seek regularization.

Respondent was employed on contract basis as an Electrician in the Benevolent Fund Cell of Provincial Administration Department, and his contract was extended from time to time

Other contract employees, except the respondent, were regularized in service under S. 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the 2009 Act')

Respondent assailed the issue through a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was allowed and directions were given to regularize the services of the respondent

Held, that perusal of the appointment order of respondent showed that it was signed by the Secretary to the Provincial Government, Administration Department, Benevolent Fund Cell

Said Secretary was a member of the Board of Management constituted by the Provincial Chief Secretary

Respondent was appointed by the Provincial Government on contract and was an employee for the purposes of S. 2(b) of the 2009 Act

Respondent also fulfilled all the pre-conditions for regularization provided under S. 3 of the 2009 Act

Direction of the High Court to regularize the respondent was based on the correct legal and factual position

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellants, contract employees, challenged the validity of order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby their writ petition was dismissed

Validity

Appellants were recruited purely on contract basis; their initial recruitment was not only found to be bogus and illegal but was also found in bare violation of Contract Policy; they had not challenged the order whereby their initial recruitment was declared to be illegal and their contract was not extended after its expiry

Contract employee could not maintain a Constitutional petition

Intra court appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner sought regularization of her services under the provisions of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 (the Act)

Validity

Combined reading and analysis of the definition clauses of "contract employee" and "regularization" clearly spelt that a contract employee meant an eligible person appointed on contract in a department before the commencement of the Act

If an employee passed the test of definitions' sub-clauses, the Act envisaged satisfaction of another condition, which was contained in S.3 of the Act

If an employee qualified the condition of S.3 as well, then the competent authority was bound to submit his case for regularization in the mode, manner and mechanism contained in S.4 of the Act

Case of petitioner fell under S.4(3) of the Act, therefore, her case was required to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee constituted under S.5 of the Act, which direction was issued accordingly

Writ 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.

Regularization of employee was not a part of the terms and conditions of service of the employee and for the same there needed to be some statutory rules, but the same also depended upon the length of service

In terms of equity it had to be seen whether a person who had given his prime life to a department was kept in dark and his services were taken in a very exploitive manner

Contract employee could invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any grievance qua terms and conditions of his service.

Service of employee had been dispensed with under Regln. No. 5 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Technical Education Regulations, 1994

Absence of employee from duty was willful and it was not possible to provide him a right of hearing or notice

Right of hearing to the employee was not necessary in circumstances

Action of departmental authority might be reversed on the basis of omission in providing hearing when the right of hearing would make a difference and when petitioner had vested right to be presented before the authority

When a right of hearing was a mere formality then omission of right of hearing could not be made the basis for reversal of an order of administrative authority

Departmental appeal of employee had rightly been dismissed by the department

Constitutional petition filed by the employee was hit by the doctrine of laches

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed, in circumstances.

Relationship of master and servant existed in the matter of contract appointment and constitutional petition was not maintainable

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in limine.

Employee could not invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and only remedy for her was a civil suit before Civil Court

Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and she had been dismissed from service

Disciplinary matters did fall within the expression "terms and conditions of service"

Service rules of employee were non-statutory which could not be thrashed out in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Contractual terms and conditions of service of employee were not enforceable through constitutional petition

Relationship of master and servant did exist between the employee and Employer Authority in the present case

Disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated against the petitioner under any statutory rules of service

No vested right of employee had been infringed in the present case

Employer-Authority had prerogative to place its employees in accordance with its service rules and regulations

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contract employee did not have any vested right to seek reinstatement into service.

Case of petitioner was with regard to regularization of his service which was de-regularized by means of order in question

Contract employee could not claim any vested right even for regularization of his service

High Court declined to interfere in de-regularization order passed against petitioner as constitutional petition was not maintainable in law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was appointed on contract basis till expiry of contractual period or appointment of incumbent through Public Service Commission

Contention of employee was that impugned order of termination of his contract before its expiry or fresh appointment through Public Service Commission was against law

Validity

Petitioner was appointed on contract basis and his contractual service had been extended by the authority

Performance Evaluation Committee had recommended extension of contractual service of employee for a further period of six months or till appointment through Public Service Commission

Authorities had illegally rejected extension of contract of employee

Post held by the employee was still vacant and petitioner was entitled for extension of his contractual service

Authorities were directed to extend the contractual service of employee till appointment of incumbent through Public Service Commission

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Contract employee could not press for reinstatement to serve for the left-over period and could at the best claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service.

Employees earlier filed constitutional petition against their termination order but same was dismissed by the High Court

Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court was disposed of for sympathetic consideration by the department

Employees were again dismissed from service

Validity

Employees were initially appointed for a Project for a period of three years and they continued to perform their duties till their services were dispensed with/terminated through the impugned order

Authority issued letter and requested to reinstate all the employees whose services had been dispensed with

Employee were still performing their duties on their respective posts and had unblemished service record; they had served for about fifteen years but with no job security till date

Impugned order was declared as without jurisdiction and without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Person who was physically prevented by reasons beyond his control from participating in a process could not be saddled with penalty entailing "willfulness"

Mere implication in criminal case from which petitioner was able to clear his name by demonstrating his innocence could not be used to deprive him of his employment

Proper course, when absence of the petitioner from duty was due to circumstances beyond his control, might be issuance of show-cause notice followed by an opportunity of reply and provision of personal hearing

Department should pass an impartial decision supported by valid reasons

Due process had not been adopted in the present case which had rendered the impugned action untenable

Impugned orders were set aside and employee was ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith

Department could hold inquiry for determination of facts in accordance with law

Intra-court appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

One of the clauses of the petitioner's employment contract specifically dealt with the termination of contract on one month's notice on either side or payment of one month's basic pay in lieu thereof

Impugned termination letter explicitly revealed that the termination of the petitioner's services was made with immediate effect with one month's basic pay in lieu of notice in accordance with said clause of the employment contract

As such, the impugned termination letter had been issued strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract employment duly accepted by the petitioner at the time of joining and now at a belated stage he could not deviate from the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution filed by a contractual employee for enforcement of terms of his contract

Such a petition was not maintainable

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

Contractual employee could at best claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service.

Alleged order was not an order terminating the contract of the employees rather intimation sent to the concerned authorities that contract of petitioners had expired

Authorities through impugned order had neither terminated the contract of employees nor imposed any stigma on them for not extending their contracts any further

Employees were not entitled to one month notice for termination of contract

Contract employee could not claim extension of the service contract as a right

Concerned authorities had prerogative to decide the matter of continuing the employee in service or dispensing with the same in accordance with the needs of employer

Petitioners were not governed by any statutory rules of service, therefore, principle of master and servant was applicable to their case

Employees had no cause of action to file the constitutional petition which was dismissed being not maintainable in circumstances.

Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution filed by a contractual employee for enforcement of terms of his contract

Such a petition was not maintainable-Where employment was on contract, there was a relationship of master and servant and in such like cases a constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution was not maintainable

Contractual employee could at best claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service.

One of the clauses of the petitioner's employment contract specifically dealt with the termination of contract on one month's notice on either side or payment of one month's basic pay in lieu thereof

Impugned termination letter explicitly revealed that the termination of the petitioner's services was made with immediate effect with one month's basic pay in lieu of notice in accordance with said clause of the employment contract

As such, the impugned termination letter had been issued strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract employment duly accepted by the petitioner at the time of joining and now at a belated stage he could not deviate from the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

If High Court concluded that inquiry was in favour of petitioner then discretion could be exercised in favour of such party

If any party in invoking constitutional jurisdiction was guilty of contumacious lethargy in action, laxity or gross negligence in the prosecution of a cause for enforcement of right then High Court would be justified in non-suiting such person on the premise of laches

Issue of delay or laches was to be considered with reference to the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule could be laid down in this behalf

Petitioner-employee was appointed on contract basis and his colleagues had been regularized in pursuance of order passed in the earlier constitutional petition

Case of petitioner-employee was identical to the case of his colleagues

Constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked against the department, in circumstances

Department could be directed for regularization, of contractual service of employee

Competent authority was directed to consider the case of employee without any discrimination for regularization of his service in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Plea of petitioners-employees was that they had secured more than 35% marks in National Testing Service and qualified for permanent absorption in the employer-Company

Validity

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

Performance of employees in the employer-Company had not been called in question throughout their service period

Employees had secured more than 35% marks in National Testing Service

Petitioners were entitled to permanent absorption in accordance with Recruitment Policy, 2013 in the manner identical to one adopted to regularize their colleagues

Employer-Company had enhanced qualifying marks to 60% for permanent absorption but no policy framed in 2017 enhancing the benchmark from 35% to 60% had been brought on record

Any subsequent change in the criteria could not be applied retrospectively to the serving employees who were subjected to Recruitment Policy, 2013

Conduct of employer company was discriminatory in circumstances

Employees were entitled to similar treatment which was extended to their similarly placed colleagues for their regularization and absorption

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

Petitioners had served the Company for a period from five to seventeen years and had acquired expertise in the respective fields

Federal Government had directed Ministries/Divisions/Companies to regularize the Services of all the contract employees who had rendered minimum one year service in continuity as on 01-01-2017

Petitioners were in continuous service of the Company for long time and were paid salary as well

Employer-Company was directed to consider the case of petitioners for regularization of their service in accordance with law within a period of two months

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

Contention of petitioner was that he had been condemned unheard while passing the impugned order and his departmental appeal had not been decided

Validity

Employee was appointed on contract basis

Contractual appointment could be terminated on expiry of contract period or any extended period on the choice of employer or appointing authority

Principle of master and servant was applicable in the present case

Petitioner had no vested right to seek reinstatement in the service

Contract employee could not claim any vested right even for regularization of his service

Employee had been provided an opportunity of personal hearing by the department

Only permanent employees of Government could prefer departmental appeal with regard to terms and conditions of their service before competent authority

Contractual employees could not prefer departmental appeal

Opportunity to show cause could be provided to the employees who were holding a permanent post

Petitioner was not a permanent employee and could not claim a vested right to be reinstated into the service

Service of a temporary employee could be terminated on 14 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof

Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable, in circumstances.

Contention of employee was that he was entitled for payment of pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his first appointment

Validity

Employee was initially appointed on fixed pay and subsequently his services were regularized

Petitioner-employee after being regularized in service had become entitled to be paid pensionary benefits from the date of his first appointment

Temporary and officiating service followed by confirmation would be counted for pension or gratuity

When contract employee was absorbed into regular employment with no break in his service, period of contract employment had to be considered for counting length of service for pensionary benefits

Department was directed by the High Court to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner-employee from the date of his first appointment

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Constitutional petition filed by the employee was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court on the ground that tenure of contract had expired

Validity

Department submitted recommendation for regularization of service of employee

Service of employee was terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance as well as with allegation of misconduct without holding any regular inquiry and opportunity of hearing to the employee

When an employee was going to be terminated on the ground of misconduct which was stigma, it was mandatory to hold regular inquiry

Termination of contract employee whose legitimate right of regularization had been accrued was not tenable

Chief Minister had regularized the services of all the contract employees in BS-1 to 15

Termination of contract of the employee was arbitrary in circumstances

Case of employee would fall within the purview of Art.25 of the Constitution

Authority could not be allowed cherry picking

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

Employee was reinstated in service without back benefits

Department was directed to regularize the employee in his capacity of what post he was holding at the time of termination of service

Intervening period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement was directed to be counted towards pensionary benefits of employee

Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Employees of a non-statutory body claimed regularization of their services alleging discrimination against the employees

Articles 25 of the Constitution would be available to the employees at any forum where petitioners wanted to agitate their right preferably under Labour laws

Constitutional petition was not maintainable.

Trial Court disposed of application of employee for permanent injunction under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. with the direction to the department to issue show-cause notice to the employee as required under the law with a reasonable opportunity to explain his position

Validity

Main prayer in the suit for declaration had been allowed without framing of issues and recording evidence

Appointment of employee was made on contract basis with certain terms and conditions

Service of such employee could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason by giving a notice for a period not less than thirty days or payment in lieu of notice period of a sum equivalent to salary of thirty days

Such notice was not required in case of termination of service on disciplinary grounds

Disputed questions of facts were involved in the present proceedings which required evidence

Equal opportunity should be given to the litigants to prove their case through evidence

Entire suit could not be disposed of through disposal of an interlocutory application

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable

Order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and matter was remanded for decision on merits in accordance with procedure

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Employee was entitled to enjoy protection of Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013

Authorities had regularized ad hoc employees on the orders of High Court by application of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013

Authorities had violated Art.25 of the Constitution by not extending equal protection of S.3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 to the petitioner in the like manner it was extended to the other adhoc employees of the department

Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 was applicable in the case of petitioner who was ad hoc employee of department

Mala fide of the department was evident from record

Employee should have been regularized from the date of his appointment

Petitioner was declared by the High Court to be regularized in service from the date of his appointment

Authorities were directed to treat the petitioner as regular employee and extend all service benefit which were denied to him on the pretext that his services were not regularized

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners had been working as contract employees for the past more than ten years and instead of regularizing their services, authorities advertised the post for fresh appointments

Validity

Petitioners had been serving in their respective positions for the last about more than ten years, though on contract basis, yet the nature of their jobs were permanent

Petitioners had been performing their functions/duties to the entire satisfaction of their employer and further that throughout the whole period, their services were required and they remained useful and beneficial to the department

Re-advertisement of the posts was indicative of the fact that the services were needed as long the department existed

No allegation of any misconduct or incompetence against the petitioners

Petitioners had right to continue against the same posts, besides availability of regular posts and creation of additional posts

High Court directed the authorities to regularize services of petitioners without back benefits in accordance with law

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner had directly approached the High Court instead of approaching the appellate authority under University Statute

Constitutional petition was not maintainable in presence of alternate remedy in the shape of Departmental Appeal

Contract employee had no right to claim regularization or continuation in service by filing constitutional petition

Claim of petitioner was neither legal nor justified

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Such employee had no right to claim regularization or continuation in service.

If appellate authority was merely to uphold the order of subordinate functionary then mandate to provide an appeal would be frustrated

Appellate authority was supposed to consider the questions agitated in the representation/appeal; order passed by the competent authority; grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and independent findings with reasons to be rendered

Appellate authority had neither applied its independent mind nor had recorded his reasons while deciding the appeal of the employee

Impugned order passed by the appellate authority was not maintainable which was set aside

Appeal of employee would be deemed to be pending before the appellate authority who should decide the same in accordance with law through reasoned order after hearing all the necessary parties

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Services of petitioner, a contract employee were terminated by issuing show cause notice by dispensing with regular inquiry

Validity

Petitioner was a contract employee

Competent authority had right to dispense with regular inquiry

Whenever any discretion was given to an authority it had to be exercised not arbitrarily, but honestly, justly and fairly in consonance with the spirit of law after application of judicious mind and for substantial reasons

Nature of allegations against the employee had to be considered for exercise of such discretion

When allegations could be decided with reference to admitted record or the authority had formed opinion that un-rebutted evidence to prove the charge against the accused/employee was available on record, regular inquiry might be dispensed with, otherwise ends of justice would demand an inquiry through an inquiry officer or inquiry committee

Such discretion had to be made in the nature of judicial decision

Discretion had to be exercised with due care and caution keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, fair trial and transparency

Authority should record reasons with regard to dispensing with regular inquiry

Where recording of evidence was necessary to establish charge then departure from regular inquiry would amount to condemn a person unheard

Serving of show cause notice and reply thereto in denial of allegations would not amount to affording the employee reasonable opportunity of showing cause

Requirement of reasonable opportunity of showing cause could only be satisfied if particular of charge or charges, substance of evidence in support of charges and specific punishment which would be called for after the charge or charges were established were communicated to the civil servant who was given reasonable time and opportunity to show use

Specific allegations had been leveled against the employee which included inefficiency and misconduct

Petitioner had denied both the charges and authority was bound to order for a regular inquiry

Departure from normal course did riot reflect bonafide of Authority rather same would show mechanical application of mind

Authority in fact was biased towards the employee

Right of fair trial had been associated with the fundamental right of access to justice which should be read in every statute even if not expressly provided for, unless specifically excluded

Order terminating service of employee contained stigmatic allegations, therefore, constitutional petition was maintainable

Order of removal from service passed against the petitioner did not stand the test of judicial scrutiny as same was against the spirit of law

Impugned order was set aside and petitioner was reinstated in service

Period between removal till reinstatement should be considered as leave without pay

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Respondents had spent more than seven years of their precious youth-time in contract employment with the department and had performed their services with satisfaction

Decision of Cabinet

Sub-committee for regularization of their services had been rightly implemented

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.