Regularization of services

2023 PLC(CS)N 13 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

AppointmentRegularization of servicesScope

Post can be filled on regular basis after due course of law and no one can claim permanent induction on the basis of any temporary appointment made on contract basis or otherwise.

2023 PLC(CS) 1561 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(aa) & 3Constitution of Pakistan , Art. 199Public office, holding ofRegularization of servicesObjection toConstitutional jurisdiction of the High CourtScopeUlterior motives /mala fide of the person filing constitutional petition

Contention of the petitioner was that the respondent was illegally appointed / regularized as Assistant Labour Officer in wake of his previous record of services

Validity

Record revealed that the case of regularization was though initially refused by the authority, nevertheless respondent again moved his case for re-consideration under provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the Act 2009'), which was forwarded to Establishment Department who clarified that the case of the respondent fell within the ambit of Ss. 3 & 2(aa) of the Act, 2009, accordingly, his services were later regularized

No illegality or misuse of the authority or jurisdiction in the regularized order was found

Disciplinary proceedings initiated by the former employer (University) against the respondent were commenced after his relieving from the University and thereby his lien was terminated, which did not cast any bar upon the respondent to hold public office

Besides, impact of letter issued by the Establishment Department or other factors , which might be relevant for issuance of writ of mandamus, could not be considered in the present constitutional petition

High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction in a matter of present nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto or it is motivated by mala fide to gain some undue advantage as a proxy and driving force for others

Record also revealed that, prior to the present constitutional petition, two other constitutional petitions of the same nature and facts having almost same prayer were filed before the High Court but were later-on withdrawn

Petitioner did not seem to have come to the Court with clean hands particularly when he belonged to other Province while the matter pertained to Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and his all present claims were a recap of the earlier filed constitutional petitions

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLC(CS) 447 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Contractual employeesRegularization of servicesScopePetitioners sought regularization of their contractual serviceValidity

Petitioners had cleared the written examination, which was a pre-condition before they could be appointed to the posts applied for but the written test could not gauge the personality of the candidate or his communication skills, or his leadership or decision-making abilities which were left to be examined at the time of the interview

Interview was a subjective test and a Court of law could not substitute its own opinion for that of the interviewing board

Summary was sent to the Competent Authority with the proposal that the services of the petitioners be retained in the public interest for successful implementation of computerization of land records in the province

However, Competent Authority had proposed that the services of petitioners be regularized through a competitive process through public notice afresh

Constitutional petitions were allowed while holding that the appointments of petitioners in the department were based on the process that was substantially and tangibly fair and within the parameters of its applicable rules and regulations through the competitive process on merits.

2023 PLC(CS) 1154 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Regularization of servicesScopePetitioners and 15 other persons were appointed as Mali BPS-1 and Chowkidar BPS-1 at State nurseriesDepartment terminated the services of 15 colleagues of petitionersColleagues approached the Chief Court and ultimately the Supreme Appellate Court for redressal of their grievanceSupreme Appellate Court regularized the services of petitioners' colleaguesDepartment regularized the services of colleagues but did not extend the same benefit to the petitionersValidity

Petitioners were also entitled for regularization of their services in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Appellate Court in colleagues' case

Writ petition was accepted and the department was directed by the Chief Court to regularize the services of petitioners.

2022 PLC(CS) 1540 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.11(5)(e)Contractual employmentRegularization of servicesScopePetitioners where aggrieved of issuance of an office order whereby they were relieved from their servicesValidity

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

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

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2022 PLC 111 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.33Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 1Individual grievanceRegularization of servicesPermanent "workman"Temporary "workman"Development Authority having non-statutory rulesEffect

Petitioners sought regularization of their services on the ground that they had continuously been performing jobs of permanent nature since the date of their appointment and a workman with nine months service was treated as a permanent employee under Os.1(b) & 1(e) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Contention of Authority was that service regulations of the department were statutory and its employees were excluded from the ambit of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Validity

Department's contention did not hold ground as Service Regulations of the Authority had not been approved by the Federal Government but by the Board, therefore, the Regulations were non-statutory

Petitioners had attained the status of permanent workman and had become at par with all other employees of the department but they were still being treated as daily wages employees which violated their right of being permanent employees of the department

Petitions were allowed.

2022 PLC 111 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.O. 1Regularization of servicesPermanent workmanTemporary workmanScope

Employees continuously working for long time against permanent posts become eligible to be regularized.

2021 PLC(CS)N 6 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Regularization of servicesContractual employment, termination ofNon-issuance of show cause noticeOpportunity of hearingScopePetitioners sought regularization of their serviceValidity

Authorities while terminating the service had neither given a show cause notice nor provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

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

2021 PLC(CS)N 6 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Regln.11Regularization of servicesDiscriminationScopePetitioners sought cancellation of their termination letters and regularization of their services

Contention of authorities was that appointments of petitioners were made without any advertisement and that qualifications of petitioners did not meet the existing criteria of minimum qualification

Validity

Rule 11(5)(c) of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal Regulation, 2009, commanded that the appointment of a temporary employee should not be for a period of more than one year but the authorities had granted extensions one after the other for a period of more than three to six years

Such extensions gave rise to a strong presumption that the petitioners were competent, efficient and expert in their subjects/duties

Fresh criteria for appointment, framed after appointment of petitioners, could not be stretched retrospectively

Petitioners were discriminated with other similarly placed employees who were regularized by the Syndicate

Non-issuing of advertisement and holding test/interview, etc., amounted to waiver

Extension in tenure of service of the petitioners had undeniably created a legitimate expectancy in their minds with reference to their retention in the service on regular basis

Authorities while terminating the services had neither given a show cause notice nor provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

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

2020 PLC(CS) 1036 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Regularization of servicesScopeEquality of citizensRule of consistencyRespondents had filed constitutional petitions seeking regularization of their servicesSingle Judge of High Court vide the impugned order had allowed the constitutional petitionsValidity

Orders similar to the impugned orders had been passed in some other Constitutional petitions by the Single Judges of the High Court which were upheld in intra court appeals

Respondents were entitled to the same relief on the principle of consistency and equality

Respondents/employees could not be discriminated without any cogent reason by violating the provisions of Art. 25 of the Constitution and it was duty of employer department to protect fundamental rights of employee as enshrined in Art.9 of the Constitution

No ground to interfere in the impugned order was made out

Intra-court appeals by the employer department, being devoid of merits, were dismissed.

2020 PLC(CS) 782 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Regularization of servicesScopePetitioners sought regularization of their services on permanent basisValidityPetitioners were appointed on contract basis

Petitioners were entitled to be appointed on regular basis for having gained sufficient experience in the relevant field

Authorities had regularized the contract services of more than hundred employees against various posts, hence, the petitioners were also entitled to be regularized in the interest of justice

Writ petition was accepted.

2018 PLC 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 44Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001), S.54Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)Daily wages employees of Tehsil Municipal AdministrationRegularization of serviceGrievance petitionMaintainabilityFunctions of Tehsil Municipal AdministrationSanitary Workers and Tubewell OperatorsIndustry"Workmen"Void orderAppealLimitationCondonation of delayGrievance petition for regularization of services was accepted concurrentlyValidityEmployees being "workmen" were governed by the principle of "master and servant"Grievance petition was maintainable in circumstances

Functions of Tehsil Municipal Administration were development of schemes, maintenance of sewer, drain and water works which would fall within the category of an "industry" involved in construction work

Sanitary Workers were concerned with sewer work whereas Tubewell Operators dealt with water works and both were "workmen"

When a person performed duties against a permanent post, he assumed the status of a permanent workman on expiry of the period mentioned in various enactments

Posts which were likely to continue without any specification of period were considered permanent posts

Employees serving the department for many years without any qualms with regard to their output, could not be divested to approach the forums created by the legislation for redressal of their grievance

Act of departmental authorities towards non-regularization of services of employees was violative of law

Department (employer) was bound to file appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal within thirty days and in case of delay was bound to explain each day's delay in filing appeal

Appeal filed by the department being barred by limitation, Labour Appellate Tribunal was justified to dismiss the same as delay without any written request could not be condoned

No preferential treatment could be given to the government functionaries while dealing with the question of limitation

Court could condone delay in filing proceedings on merits

Findings recorded by Courts below were based on cogent reasons

When a party failed to challenge an order within prescribed period of limitation, same could not be set aside merely on the ground that no limitation would run against a void order

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLC(CS) 1035 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Work charge employeesRegularization of servicesRegularization of services of employees on the direction of High CourtSeeking of equal treatment by the other employees of the departmentValidity

When High Court had decided a point of law with regard to other similar employees of the department then department ought to have taken into consideration the case of other employees including the petitioners who could not take any proceedings to seek their right

Benefit of decision of High Court ought to have been extended to other employees of the department who were not party to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the High Court for the same relief

Petitioners were entitled to equal treatment meted out already to the other employees on the direction of High Court

Department was directed to regularize the petitioners within four weeks

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2015 PLC(CS) 1137 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Notifications OM No.10/30/2008-R-II, dated 29-8-2008Notification No.F.2/3/2014-Lit, dated 2-4-2015, Cabinet DivisionIntra-court AppealRegularization of services

Appellants were aggrieved of judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court declaring regularization of services by cabinet sub-committee to be without jurisdiction

Validity

Terms of reference of committee were extensive and provided an opportunity to employers as well as employees to present their cases before it and the Committee would examine each case on merits

Notification in question was issued pursuant to an order passed by High Court in Constitutional petition, which order attained finality as Supreme Court had refused leave

Matter related to policy owned by Federal Government and therefore, beyond the pale of jurisdiction of High Court

Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court

Division Bench of High Court directed all government and semi-government departments, government agencies and statutory corporations to approach the Committee for regularization of employees who fulfill criteria as laid down in Notification OM No.10/30/2008-R-II, dated 29-8-2008, and each case would be examined on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to parties

Regularization policy could not be construed or implemented in manner which might extend legitimacy to illegally appointed employees

Intra-court appeal was allowed accordingly.

2013 SCMR 890 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Regularization of servicesAd hoc appointees

Right of ad hoc appointees to seek regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Scope

Notification concerning a (Government) post not to be given retrospective effect to extend benefit of regularization

Provincial Government advertised posts of Additional Government Pleaders for recruitment on ad hoc basis prescribing qualification of LLB with five years' experience as an advocate

Respondents were appointed on ad hoc basis to the said posts for a period of six months till selection of appointees by the Public Service Commission

Services of respondents were terminated after completion of six months

Respondents filed a constitutional petition before the High Court seeking regularization of their service relying upon S.3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

During pendency of said constitutional petition, Provincial Government issued a notification, by which requirement of five years' experience for posts in question was dispensed with

High Court while relying upon said notification accepted the constitutional petition and gave directions for regularizing services of respondents

Legality

Admittedly respondents did not have the required five years' experience on the date when they were appointed as ad hoc appointees for a term of six months

Services of respondents were terminated on expiry of their term before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 was promulgated

Respondents did not have the required experience of five years standing as an advocate on the date of promulgation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Notification by which requirement of five years' experience was dispensed with was issued after the said Act, therefore the notification could not be applied retrospectively to extend benefit of S.3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Once the services of respondents were terminated, they were required to compete for the posts through the Public Service Commission

Ad hoc appointment of respondents would not give them a vested right for seeking their regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Impugned judgment of High Court was contrary to the law and was set aside accordingly

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2013 PLC(CS) 987 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityCivil serviceContractual employeeSeniorityNon-statutory service rulesRegularization of servicesFixation of ante dated seniority from the date of initial appointment

Petitioners were regularized in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court through departmental Selection Committee and they were placed on the bottom of seniority list under the relevant rules

Seniority could not be fixed higher than the other regular employees who had already been working in the cadre

Constitutional petition was allowed

Department was directed to fix the seniority of petitioners from ante-date as per the recommendations of Committee.

2013 PLC(CS) 987 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Contractual employeesRegularization of services

Committee was constituted by the department to make recommendations about the regularization of services of contractual employees in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court

Department did not challenge the constitution of Committee, its mandate and recommendations, rather with mala fide intention sat over the recommendations

Act of the department was rarity and uncalled for

Department was directed by High Court to follow/implement the recommendations of Committee.