Contract employees
Contract employees legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Under these rules, although there is a concept of Cabinet Sub-Committees on different subjects, there is no provision for the intervention of a Cabinet Sub-Committee in governing the terms and conditions of service of employees
However, the Cabinet Sub-Committee can recommend reforms in the service structure, which can be approved by the Cabinet in accordance with the law and the Constitution
As, the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacks the authority to recommend the regularization of posts in BS-16 and above, therefore, any recommendation by the Cabinet Sub-Committee to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above is void ab initio and without any lawful authority.
Regularization of a contractual employee constitutes a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointments in civil services.
Any institution opting for regularization of its employees must be either mandated by law or must carry out regularization through a well-thought-out policy of the institution concerned laying down the criteria and the process for regularization; performance evaluation of the contractual employee must be assessed to determine if the employee meets the standards required for a regular position; there must be availability of positions that match the skills and experience of the contractual employee; the budgetary considerations and financial implication of a regular employee must be weighed and considered
There must be a fair assessment of the employee's qualifications, performance and merit, so as to ensure only competent and committed employees are granted permanent employment status.
Any institution opting for regularization of its employees must be either mandated by law or must carry out regularization through a well-thought-out policy of the institution concerned laying down the criteria and the process for regularization; performance evaluation of the contractual employee must be assessed to determine if the employee meets the standards required for a regular position; there must be availability of positions that match the skills and experience of the contractual employee; the budgetary considerations and financial implication of a regular employee must be weighed and considered
There must be a fair assessment of the employee's qualifications, performance and merit, so as to ensure only competent and committed employees are granted permanent employment status.
Regularization of a contractual employee constitutes a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointments in civil services.
Under these rules, although there is a concept of Cabinet Sub-Committees on different subjects, there is no provision for the intervention of a Cabinet Sub-Committee in governing the terms and conditions of service of employees
However, the Cabinet Sub-Committee can recommend reforms in the service structure, which can be approved by the Cabinet in accordance with the law and the Constitution
As, the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacks the authority to recommend the regularization of posts in BS-16 and above, therefore, any recommendation by the Cabinet Sub-Committee to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above is void ab initio and without any lawful authority.
Facts of the case, in brevity, were that the petitioners were appointed on contract in 2007 in the 'Prosecution Service of Punjab' and their services were terminated later but the High Court held that they were entitled to regularization under the government's notification dated 10.11.2010
They were eventually appointed on a regular basis in 2022, but their appointments were treated as fresh appointments, whereas, the petitioners sought regularization from the dated of notification dated 10.11.2010 for seniority and benefits
Question before the High Court was as to "whether the date of regularization of the petitioners (employees) should be considered as 10.11.2010 (the date of the notification)"
Held: The notification dated 10.11.2010 served as a policy guideline for the prospective regularization of the contract employees and it did not confer an automatic or retrospective right to regularization
Rather, each case required evaluation based on specific criteria, including performance and the fulfillment of prescribed qualifications
The notification did not stipulate that regularization would be effective from the date of initial contract appointment or from the date of the notification
Instead, it provided a framework for considering the contract employees for regularization
Only upon regularization, the contract employees would enter the regular service stream anew, without retrospective benefits
Contractual employees enjoyed no vested right to regularization much less to be regularized from any particular date
The benefit of regularization extended to them under the regularization policy was prospective in nature and there was no legal justification to give it retrospective application
Any such step would have totally negated the purpose and significance of the contract appointment policy by leaving no distinction between a contractual and a regular employee
Regularization in service was to be treated as a fresh appointment to maintain the integrity of the civil service system and to protect the rights of the existing civil servants
Both regular and contractual employees were governed by two separate and distinct legal frameworks
Contractual appointments were governed by specific terms and conditions distinct from those applicable to the regular civil servants
Therefore, allowing the contract employees to claim seniority from the date of notification would have infringed upon the rights of existing regular civil servants, disrupting established hierarchies and entitlements
Therefore, date of regularization could not be the date of the regularization policy envisaged under the notification (i.e. 10.11.2010)
Present as well as connected petition being devoid of any merit, were dismissed, in circumstances.
Rights of the petitioners had already been safeguarded in lieu of a uniform policy by way of giving them extra marks for their services rendered during the currency of projects
Safeguards were in place for the benefit of the project employees including the petitioners, which was essentially a policy matter falling within the domain of the executive
High Court in exercise of judicial review could not navigate beyond and above the policy set out by the executive limb of the State, for project employees, as this would surely amount to the judicial overreach, therefore, a direction could not be passed to the respondents for regularization of service of the petitioners, as of right, without advertising the posts for general public
Any organization aims at continuity in its working and functions which may run into difficulty if the serving employees are ousted from the service and asked to compete in the process
Petitioners, who were admittedly in service, were allowed to continue to work till the completion of the process of recruitment, on regular basis, through competitive process and further continuation of the petitioners would be determined only if they qualify and stand on the merit list
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
In the absence of any law, policy or rules, an employee could not knock the door of the Court for regularization of his/her services.
In the absence of any law, policy or rules, an employee could not knock the door of the Court for regularization of his/her services.
Such employees had no vested right to claim regularization.
Such employees had no vested right to claim regularization.
As a result of this conversion, posts occupied by the respondents were sanctioned by the Provincial Finance Department with the direction to fill the same by fresh recruitment
Respondents were not regularized in the said sanctioned posts
Held, that the Shrine and the Library were subsequently handed over to the administrative control of the Provincial Archives and Libraries Department and thus posts in the Shrine and the Library stood converted to the regular side and the requisite notification was issued by the concerned department which still held the field
Respondents were given assurances that they would be adjusted against the said posts
Respondents had already been declared as civil servants vide an office order
Vide an office memo it was stated that the employees of the Shrine had been appointed as per the prescribed rules and procedure, therefore, they should be adjusted against the posts that were sanctioned
Respondents had been unlawfully relieved because plausible reasons were not given for doing the same
In the absence of such reasons, and by omitting to follow the correct procedure to relieve a civil servant, the Provincial authorities had committed an illegality
Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the 2009 Act') provided that all contractual or ad hoc employees who had been appointed before the promulgation of the 2009 Act would be deemed to have been validly appointed against regular posts
As such, the Provincial authorities could not circumvent the law and take a different position which was neither supported by the law, nor by the record of its own actions
High Court had rightly re-instated and regularized the services of the respondents
Appeals were dismissed.
Contractual employees, who were governed by the principle of master and servant, did not have the right to approach the High Court (in its constitutional jurisdiction) to seek redressal of their grievances relating to regularization.
Contractual employees had no automatic right to be regularized unless the same had specifically been provided for in law.
Contractual employees had no automatic right to be regularized unless the same had specifically been provided for in law.
Contractual employees, who were governed by the principle of master and servant, did not have the right to approach the High Court (in its constitutional jurisdiction) to seek redressal of their grievances relating to regularization.
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 filed constitutional petition for regularization of services which was accepted by the Single Judge of High Court with the direction to the department to constitute a committee to consider their case for regularization
Validity
Government had issued a letter whereby autonomous bodies were directed to make appointment on regular basis of the contract appointees in BS-1 to 15
Employers being autonomous body were required to comply with the said letter but they remained failed
High Court observed that agreement that contract appointment did not confer any right of regularization was an obstructive tool in the way of regularization of service of employees
Contract employees could not be deprived from their legal right of regularization in any way when a policy of regularization had been framed by the Government
Employee at the time of appointment on contract while signing the agreement had no position of bargaining with the employer and employer could coerce them to waive their legal protection and accept, contractual terms or face the risk of losing the jobs
Department was bound to implement the policy of Government with regard to regularization of contract employees
Employees were still working in department but employers had deprived them from their legal right
Departments could not be allowed to follow the policy of pick and choose rather they were bound to treat all employees equally qua their service as well as their benefits
Employers were to deal with the employees fairly, justly and honestly qua the matter of regularization of service
Employees were to be treated in accordance with law without any discrimination
In the present case posts against which employees had been appointed were of permanent nature
Employees had been discharging their duties entirely to the satisfaction of employers
Retaining services of employees on the contract instead of on permanent basis was mala fide and unfair
Employees had now become overage for further appointment
No one should be prevented from earning his livelihood
Employees were entitled for regularization of services in circumstances
Competent authority had not applied its mind while exercising its discretion to the grievance of employees rather it had resulted in pick and choose in the exercise of discretion
Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a period of three years, however, only after a year an order was issued by which the petitioners were regularized with immediate effect, in relaxation of the provisions of the Contract Appointment Policy and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as a special one-time dispensation
Legality
Rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 ("the Rules") stated that "any of the rules" in "any individual case of hardship" and "for special reasons to be recorded in writing" and "to the extent prescribed" by the Chief Minister may be relaxed
In case of petitioners not a single one of said stipulated preconditions were even mentioned, let alone fulfilled, and were flouted
Reason given by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister for relaxing the Contract Appointment Policy and the Rules was to prevent the petitioners from getting better salaries and perks in the private sector and therefore it was deemed to be in the "public interest" to get them regularized
Same Principal Secretary however contradicted himself subsequently and mentioned "compassionate circumstances of the case and the experience accumulated by them [petitioners] during the period of their contractual appointment" as reasons for relaxing the Rules and recommending the petitioners' regularization
Incongruous order was passed which both relaxed the Rules and regularized the petitioners
Such order did not mention the individual hardship of any petitioner, it was not passed by the Chief Minister, "special reasons" were not recorded in writing by the Chief Minister necessitating relaxing of the Rules and the particular rule, i.e. "any one of the rules" was not mentioned
Completely illegal exercise was carried out in purported exercise of R. 23 of the Rules
Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, implemented the wish of the Chief Minister and did so by resorting to absurd reasons without compunction, and he apparently did so in his enthusiasm to appease and serve the person of the Chief Minister, and not the Province and its people
Supreme Court observed that bureaucrats must remember that they were servants of the State and the people and that their abject subservience to one person (the Chief Minister in the present case) destroyed the confidence of the people in the bureaucracy
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a period of three years, however, only after a year an order was issued by which the petitioners were regularized with immediate effect, in relaxation of the provisions of the Contract Appointment Policy and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as a special one-time dispensation
Legality
Rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 ("the Rules") stated that "any of the rules" in "any individual case of hardship" and "for special reasons to be recorded in writing" and "to the extent prescribed" by the Chief Minister may be relaxed
In case of petitioners not a single one of said stipulated preconditions were even mentioned, let alone fulfilled, and were flouted
Reason given by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister for relaxing the Contract Appointment Policy and the Rules was to prevent the petitioners from getting better salaries and perks in the private sector and therefore it was deemed to be in the "public interest" to get them regularized
Same Principal Secretary however contradicted himself subsequently and mentioned "compassionate circumstances of the case and the experience accumulated by them [petitioners] during the period of their contractual appointment" as reasons for relaxing the Rules and recommending the petitioners' regularization
Incongruous order was passed which both relaxed the Rules and regularized the petitioners
Such order did not mention the individual hardship of any petitioner, it was not passed by the Chief Minister, "special reasons" were not recorded in writing by the Chief Minister necessitating relaxing of the Rules and the particular rule, i.e. "any one of the rules" was not mentioned
Completely illegal exercise was carried out in purported exercise of R. 23 of the Rules
Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, implemented the wish of the Chief Minister and did so by resorting to absurd reasons without compunction, and he apparently did so in his enthusiasm to appease and serve the person of the Chief Minister, and not the Province and its people
Supreme Court observed that bureaucrats must remember that they were servants of the State and the people and that their abject subservience to one person (the Chief Minister in the present case) destroyed the confidence of the people in the bureaucracy
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Employer had prerogative to issue show-cause notice to any of its employees if found deficient on the requisite qualification
Petitioners were serving the department since 2009 and there was no complaint whatsoever with regard to performance, efficiency and conduct of employees
Employees deserved for regularization against the post which they were holding
Claim of employees who fell within the promotion zone be placed before the competent authority for a decision
If any illegality/irregularity had been committed by the employer then employees could not be made scapegoat
Employees had become overage and could not seek employment elsewhere
Petitioners could not be kept for indefinite period on contract
Right of employment was the right of livelihood
High Court observed that petitioners who were in service stood regularized and those who were restrained/dispensed with but appointed on contractual basis stood reinstated
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
When someone was appointed after fulfilling required criteria and appointment was made in prescribed manner then service of such employee could only be terminated after following the law governing procedure for removal from service
If said procedure was not followed, termination order would be ultra vires, ab initio void, in violation of law and without lawful authority
No one could be condemned unheard
No reason had been given for termination orders
When an employee had assumed the charge and performed his duties then he could not be terminated without assigning valid reasons after fulfilling procedure prescribed under the rules
Termination during probationary period was not tenable
Persons who had been appointed allegedly without following the rules or on irregular basis could not be penalized
Appointing authority in such circumstances was to proceed against the officials who were responsible, and not the appointees who had served the department for a long period of time
Statutory bodies were to act in accordance with law
In the present case, contract of employees had been extended and their services had been regularized
Once competent authority had regularized service of employee it created valuable right in favour of that employee which could not be reversed by taking contradictory stances at different times
Appointing department could not approbate and reprobate in the same breath with regard to the same matter
Termination orders passed by the department were in violation of rules envisaged in Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997
If rules and laws were not followed then termination order would be without lawful authority and constitutional petition would be maintainable
Impugned orders were set aside
Employees were directed to be deemed in service from the date of judgment
No salaries would be paid to the employees as they had not served the department
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Contention of petitioners-employees was that letters for termination of their services were illegal and their service should be regularized
Validity
Executive and managing authority of the Education Foundation was with its Board of Directors
Board of Directors had powers to appoint employees and other functionaries of the Education Foundation and determine the terms and conditions of their employment
Managing Director of the Education Foundation could exercise all such powers and could do all such acts and things as were authorized by Board of Directors
Contractual appointments were made on the basis of merits which did not confer any right for regular appointment
Managing Director had powers to terminate the services of contract employees without assigning any reason or without approval of Board of Directors or Provincial Government
Managing Director could only extend the contract and re-negotiate new terms and conditions of contractual appointment with the approval of Board of Directors
Provincial Government had powers to make rules for carrying out the purposes of Punjab Education Foundation Act, 2004 through notification
Provincial Government had allowed the Education Foundation to engage personnels on contract basis
Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2006 having been sanctioned by the Provincial Government were applicable to the employees and Education Foundation
Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2006 had statutory status and deviation from the same could be enforced by competent Court
Petitioners being employees of Education Foundation had accepted employment on the basis of their service contract and agreed to be governed by Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2006, thus were governed by Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2006 having statutory backing
Managing Director of the Foundation could terminate the services of contract employees on one month's salary in lieu of terms and condition of contract appointment
Impugned letters were issued in compliance with the directions of the Managing Director of the Foundation
No violation of contract employment or statutory Rules i.e. Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2006 had been made by the Education Foundation
Employees enjoyed extension in their contract through letters none of which were signed by Managing Director but Human Resource Department which was not the appointing Authority
Employees did not raise any objection for such matter and only raised the objections in case of their termination
Termination of service had been approved by the Chief Minister
Education Foundation had to evaluate as to who was the employee worthy of serving the best interest of Foundation and as to who was more suitable
Impugned decision for not extending the contracts by the Education Foundation had been made pursuant to deliberations and approval of Managing Director and Chief Minister
Question of arbitrariness or illegality had no relevance to the matter in circumstances
No statutory rules or provision of Act had been violated by the Education Foundation while terminating the employment of petitioners
Appointment of employees was temporary on contract basis which could be terminated in absence of any violation of provision of law/statutory rules
Employees were entitled to one month's notice or salary in lieu of terms and conditions of contract
Petitioners-employees had failed to point out any contravention of their Fundamental Right by the Education Foundation
Such decision could not be interfered by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction
Services governed by a contract would not confer a guaranteed right on the employee to continue in employment and to seek reinstatement on being illegally dismissed or terminated
Such employees could not approach Court of law for seeking appointment even if they were refused employment illegally or in contravention of service contract or non-statutory rules/regulations
Damages against such termination under principle of "master and servant" could be claimed
Contract of employees had expired before impugned letters
Constitutional petition could not be allowed conferring such right to the petitioners
No statutory provision existed for regular appointment of petitioners in the Education Foundation
Directions of Chief Minister could not have precedence over the Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2006
Education Foundation had not raised any allegation on the employees therefore right of hearing was not mandatory to be provided
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Federal Government was not empowered to bypass or render statutory provisions redundant by way of a regularization policy
Likewise, a delegated legislation, such as the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 would prevail to the extent of conflict with a regularization policy
Policy of the Federal Government had to be interpreted in conformity with the statutory provisions or delegated legislation made there under.
University was a creation of Statute and its Syndicate/Senate had been empowered to formulate its rules/statutes to be approved by the Chancellor (Governor of the Province)
University, thus was a statutory body
Petitioners could not be held as civil servants for the purpose of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act, 1974
Employees had rightly approached the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction and constitutional petition was maintainable
Authorities instead of making appointments on regular basis appointed petitioners on contract/fixed pay basis or ad hoc basis and kept them in same status
Employees possessed prescribed qualification for the post held by them and had sufficient experience besides no objection was on record about their performance
Similarly placed employees having been regularized petitioners could not be allowed to be discriminated
Employees had been adjusted on sanctioned budgetary posts, they had a right to be regularized on said regular posts
One day artificial break was given in every order while extending the contract services of employees to deprive them of regularization of their service
Authorities were directed by the High Court to regularize the services of petitioners-employees within thirty days
Employees would not be entitled to back benefits
Constitutional petitions were allowed in circumstances.
Matters falling within the domain of Art.240 of the Constitution and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 would not be out of the ambit of a Constitutional court
Procedure for the purpose of appointment was followed properly and selection of petitioners were made by the competent selection committees
All the appointments were temporary on contract basis for fixed terms or till arrival of recommendations of Public Service Commission
Petitioners took-over the charge under the settled law of the land
All the posts were converted into regular with creation of regular posts
Petitioners were continuously in-service right from the day of appointments till the issuance of impugned dispensation order
Even dispensed with/terminated employees had been re-appointed by reducing the upper age limit against the regular posts
Appointments had been made on regular basis from amongst the dispensed with employees
Petitioners had been discriminated who had become over-aged by now
Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
Earlier constitutional petition filed by the petitioners-employees was accepted and matter was remitted to the Provincial Chief Secretary for redressal of petitioners' grievance
Chief Secretary refused to regularize the services of petitioners-employees
Contention of Government was that the posts of petitioners were contractual and not permanent
Validity
Petitioners were contract employees who were offered contract of service 9 to 11 years ago through an open competition after due process of law
Government had extended contract of petitioners without break of single day
All assets and liabilities of irrigation and drainage system had been transferred to the Authority
Petitioners-employees were performing their duties from the last more than 10 to 11 years and notification dated 14-10-2009 for regularization of services was applicable to their case
If authorities were aggrieved of the findings recorded in the previous constitutional petition that the regularization notification was applicable to the petitioners, they should have assailed the same according to law
Authorities had failed to point out that petitioners were appointed on a project
Act of authorities to terminate services of petitioners by declaring them as contract employees was against the "fundamental right of life"
Government was directed by High Court to regularize the petitioners' services in terms of regularization Notification No.DS(O&M)5-3/ 2004/CONTRACT(MF) dated 14-10-2009
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Petitioners were recruited in BPS-16 who assailed regularization of service of respondents on the ground that respondents were contract employees and competent authority to appoint them was Federal Public Service Commission
Validity Respondents were working on contract basis and their contract period was extended further which was not challenged at any time by petitioners
Regularization of contract employees, who were appointed on contract basis for a certain period was not supposed to put to tests by Federal Public Service Commission
Decision was passed by Cabinet Sub-Committee for regularization of service of contract/daily wages employees in ministries/divisions/attached departments/ autonomous bodies/organizations etc.
Recommendations of Cabinet Sub-Committee were binding upon all ministries/divisions/attached departments/autonomous bodies/organizations etc. as a policy decision of government, therefore, final order with regard to regularization of service had to be issued by concerned authority inside department in view of S.2(2) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, which was derived basically from Estacode the service structure including almost all types of services in Pakistan
High Court declined to interfere in order passed by the authorities
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Grievance of petitioners was that authorities withheld their salaries on the pretext that Planning Commission of Pakistan had not released the same
Validity
Petitioners kept on performing their duties after extension of their contracts which were extended by a state owned Corporation
If the Corporation had not consulted Government, petitioners should not suffer
Federal Government could proceed against persons at the helm of affairs of the corporation and concerned Ministry for alleged violation of directions of Prime Minister
Government was to issue funds from Public Sector Development Project and it was withholding the same without lawful justification
Petitioners were full time workers and they were entitled to withdraw their salaries and consequential benefits
Withholding of such benefits amounted to violation of fundamental rights of petitioners
High Court directed the authorities to release funds for payment of salaries to petitioners
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Such employees would be entitled to be treated fairly in terms of Arts.4 & 25 of the Constitution.
Contention of the petitioners was that they were made a subject of discrimination, as summary for regularization of their services of other similarly circumstanced employees of Health Department had been forwarded, but the petitioners were left out despite the fact that during the pendency of the Constitutional Petition on 25th March, 2013, Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 had been promulgated
Regularization of project post and exclusion of employees on daily-wages and work-charged basis
Scope
Employee who had been appointed on ad hoc and contract basis against the post in BS-1 to BS-18 or equivalent basic scales, who were otherwise eligible for appointment on such post and was in service in the Government department and its project in connection with the affairs of the Province, immediately before the commencement of said Act, shall be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis
Said Act excluded the employees appointed on daily-wages and work-charged basis from its purview
After promulgation of said Act, there was no interference or hindrance for regularization of employees who were performing their duties on ad hoc or contract basis and any denial to such right to any employee who was otherwise eligible under the said Act would be deemed to be exploitation
Under Art.3 of the Constitution, it was the responsibility of the State to ensure elimination of all forms of exploitation and gradual fulfillment of the fundamental principle, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work
Government was responsible to apply and allow the benefit to all employees placed in equal and similar circumstances without any discrimination and not to pick and choose the employee for conferring the benefit or advantage
When the law giver had declared or promulgated any beneficial law, it was his responsibility to implement it across the board with an open heart and benevolence without any conservative or rigid approach
Said Act was a beneficial statute proclaimed with the sole aim to provide and secure the rights of a particular category or class of employees for their betterment and to safeguard and preserve the contractual or ad hoc employment into a permanency
Said Act enshrined that the efforts should be made to bequeath the benefit and its advantage to all the deserving employees in rem rather than to seek ways and means to deprive them on one or the other pretext which was against the norms of good governance
Constitutional petition was disposed of with directions to the authorities.
Contract employees did not have a vested right for regular appointment.
Matter regarding regularization of contract employees of Zakat Department as well as appointment of Chairman of Central Zakat Council
Contract employees
Regular appointment, right of
Scope
Petitioners were employed on contractual basis for fixed terms by their respective District Zakat Committees and were paid emoluments out of the Zakat Fund set up under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980
Petitioners sought regularization of their services at par with other regular employees of Zakat and Ushr Department
Contentions of petitioners were that they had been serving the Zakat and Ushr Department for periods ranging from 10 to 17 years; that they were not employees of a project mandated to be wound up upon its completion but were employed in a permanent department of the Government, and that they were performing functions similar to those of regular employees
Validity
Petitioners were employed/recruited on contractual basis by the Chairman of the District Zakat Committees on fixed salaries for specific terms, which were extended from time to time
Petitioners were not appointed against any particular post and their appointment was not made by any government official or authority
Appointment of petitioners was not under a particular law but under a policy decision taken the Central Zakat Committee
Nature of petitioners' employment was for a specific purpose/task and on such score they had no vested right for regular appointment
After the 18th Amendment in the Constitution subject of Zakat and Ushr was devolved to the provinces, however system of collection and disbursement of Zakat remained unchanged notwithstanding such devolution
Before devolution of subject of Zakat and Ushr to Provinces, petitioners were paid their salaries from the Zakat Fund under S.8(c)(iii) of Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, and even after devolution of the subject to the Provinces, provisions similar to said section were incorporated in enactments made by the Provinces, i.e., Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Zakat and Ushr Act, 2011, Sindh Zakat and Ushr Act, 2011 and Balochistan Zakat and Ushr Act, 2012
Status of petitioners thus remained unchanged even after devolution of the subject of Zakat and Ushr to the Provinces
Petition was dismissed accordingly.
Contract employees did not have a vested right for regular appointment.
Matter regarding regularization of contract employees of Zakat Department as well as appointment of Chairman of Central Zakat Council
Contract employees
Regular appointment, right of
Scope
Petitioners were employed on contractual basis for fixed terms by their respective District Zakat Committees and were paid emoluments out of the Zakat Fund set up under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980
Petitioners sought regularization of their services at par with other regular employees of Zakat and Ushr Department
Contentions of petitioners were that they had been serving the Zakat and Ushr Department for periods ranging from 10 to 17 years; that they were not employees of a project mandated to be wound up upon its completion but were employed in a permanent department of the Government, and that they were performing functions similar to those of regular employees
Validity
Petitioners were employed/recruited on contract basis by the Chairman of the District Zakat Committees on fixed salaries for specific terms, which were extended from time to time
Petitioners were not appointed against any particular post and their appointment was not made by any government official or authority
Appointment of petitioners was not under a particular law but under a policy decision taken by the Central Zakat Committee
Nature of petitioners' employment was for a specific purpose/task and on such score they had no vested right for regular appointment
After the 18th Amendment in the Constitution subject of Zakat and Ushr was devolved to the provinces, however system of collection and disbursement of Zakat remained unchanged notwithstanding such devolution
Before devolution of subject of Zakat and Ushr to Provinces, petitioners were paid their salaries from the Zakat Fund under S.8(c)(iii) of Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, and even after devolution of the subject to the Provinces, provisions similar to said section were incorporated in enactments made by the Provinces, i.e., Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Zakat and Ushr Act, 2011, Sindh Zakat and Ushr Act, 2011 and Balochistan Zakat and Ushr Act, 2012
Status of petitioners thus remained unchanged even after devolution of the subject of Zakat and Ushr to the Provinces
Petition was dismissed accordingly.
"Contract employees", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939580
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Contract employees"
2020 P L C (C
Mst. NABILA NIAZ and others Versus SECRETARY HEALTH and others
Court: Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench)2012 P L C (C
M. ASLAM JANJUA Versus CHIEF ENGINEER and others
Court: Lahore High Court2014 P L C (C
ATTA MUHAMMAD and another Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary States and Frontier Regions Division, Islamabad and 2 others
Court: Lahore High Court2021 S C M R 760
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD TAUQIR SHAH and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2020 P L C (C
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore and others Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2020 S C M R 507
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2012 P L C (C
Dr. LAL HUSSAIN AKHTAR and others Versus CHIEF SECRETARY PUNJAB and others
Court: Lahore High Court1997 P L C (C
MASHAL KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, N.‑W.F.P. and 2 others
Court: Peshawar High Court2012 P L C (C
ALI AKBAR and 2 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Punjab Public Prosecution Department, Lahore and 2 others
Court: Lahore High Court2025 S C M R 14
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others — Petitioners Versus QASIM MEHMOOD and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan