Contractual appointment

Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed for regularization in respondent / company

Validity

For issuing a writ under Art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, a petitioner has to establish that he is guaranteed a fundamental or legal right

Object of Art. 199 of the Constitution is enforcement of a legal right and not establishment of a legal right

In absence of a specific provision in contract or law providing for regularization, contract employees do not have vested right for regular appointment solely due to long and satisfactory contractual service

While exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, High Court cannot extend scope of a contract or alter terms and conditions of employment in favour of an employee

There was no statute or Government policy applicable to respondent / company requiring or enabling it to regularize contract employees and no writ could be issued to respondent / company to do so under Art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution

Refusal of respondent / company to regularize petitioners did not infringe their fundamental rights in Art. 9 or 25 of the Constitution and did not entitle them to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed regularization in respondent / company

Validity

Subject of regularization was not a part of terms and conditions of service

Question of maintainability of such claim did not turn on whether service rules of respondent / company were statutory or non-statutory so much as whether any statute or other instrument having force of law conferred such right so as to admit to its enforcement through a petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution

From the stand point of Art. 199 of the Constitution, subject of entitlement to regularization and question of maintainability of a petition brought on such subject were intertwined

In absence of any statute or other instrument having force of law requiring respondent / company to regularize service of petitioners, no entitlement had arisen so as to enable them to bring and maintain petitions under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed regularization in respondent / company

After decision of Supreme Court in the matter, petitioners sought determination of their individual claims by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Validity

Petitioners had already been non-suited by High Court earlier on account of maintainability

Matter was remanded by Supreme Court and High Court was also invited to express its view on the issue of entitlement

Separate pleas of each of the three thousand three hundred and fifty nine claimants were not individually appraised and jurisdiction had been declined

Full Bench of High Court declined to render findings in respect of individual entitlement as the same was not merited and petitioners could approach appropriate forum in accordance with law

High Court was bound by an authority illumined by Supreme Court, in application of enunciation of principles of law enshrined in its judgment

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Posts are of two kinds one is called temporary post which is always a time-bound post, and the post which is not time-bound is always treated as a permanent post and there is no concept of any contract post in service jurisprudence; and, in the service regulations there is no post which can be termed as contract post as a separate cadre; and, there is no procedure whatsoever which provides appointment by way of contract, therefore, the provincial government is bound to ensure that every appointment in the basic scales is to be made, in their departments, under the regular mode of appointment/service and not otherwise.

Appellant assailed non-extension of their contractual appointments and contended that they were discriminated against the employees whose contracts were extended

Validity

To establish discrimination it was imperative for the appellants to substantiate that they were equally placed with the employees whose contracts were extended

Such an allegation that too bereft of any support or material under the law was bald and evasive.

Appellants assailed non-extension of their contractual appointments through constitutional petition, which was dismissed

Validity

Extension of contracts could not be granted to the appellants as of law as well as of right, firstly, for the reasons that on the day when the appellants had invoked the constitutional jurisdiction their status was of employees whose contracts had expired and High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction through a mandatory injunction could not force an unwilling employer to extend the contract of service which had already expired; secondly, for granting a relief canvassed by the appellants in the writ petition and in the Intra Court Appeal High Court could not undertake a factual inquiry i.e. whether the performance of appellant was satisfactory or not; thirdly, it was not the case of appellants that non-extension of their contracts suffered from mala fide in law as neither the Contract Policy, 2004, was challenged nor any statutory instrument or order was assailed

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed.

Contract employee does not have a vested right to seek extension of his contract.

Such is master's prerogative to terminate servant's contractual appointment if the former does not find the latter's performance to be satisfactory

Such termination can take place in accordance with terms and conditions of employment contract

Contractual employee cannot insist for a regular inquiry to be held regarding employer's satisfaction with employee's performance

Contractual nature of person's employment makes his relationship with his employer that of master and servant

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, can neither declare termination of an employee's contractual employment to be unlawful nor can hold that employment contract continues to subsist

Such principles do not apply where a statute, in explicit terms, requires an appointment to be made for a fixed tenure and also prescribes ground for removal of the appointee

Appointment by contract containing termination clause which enables employer to terminate employment without assigning any reason and on payment of salary in lieu of notice amounts to circumventing statutory mandate of appointment being made for a fixed tenure.

Appellants sought continuation of their service with respondent company but Single Judge of High Court declined to interfere in the matter as the rules were non-statutory

Validity

Ownership and control of respondent company by Federal Government did not ipso facto entail conclusion that the Service Manual was approved or was required to be approved by Federal Government

Approval of Service Manual would not bring it as a sub-delegated legislation under a statute

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent was contractual employee of National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (NESPAK) who was retired before completion of his contract on attaining the age of superannuation

Single Judge of High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside such order of retirement

Validity

Terms and conditions of contractual appointment of respondent were governed by non-statutory rules of NESPAK therefore, Constitutional petition filed by him was not maintainable

Respondent accepted and acted upon his retirement order and in view of the same approached NESPAK to obtain his retirement benefits including but not limited to his gratuity etc.

Respondent, after having done so, filed Constitutional petition before High Court after about five months seeking his reinstatement

Such conduct of respondent was sufficient to dismiss his Constitutional petition itself coupled with fact that his terms and conditions of service were not only contractual but were also governed by non-statutory service rules

Court could be approached by the respondent within ninety days

Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by Single Judge of High Court and order passed by employer company was maintained

Intra Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner served with National Accountability Bureau on contract basis and his grievance was that his service was not regularized

Validity

Regularization in service could not be claimed as vested right as petitioner had not only accepted terms of conditions of his engagement initially but also accepted extension of his contract on the same terms however, at the verge of its expiry, approached the High Court

Nothing was placed on record to show any discriminatory treatment except two orders of different High Courts in which facts of the cases were distinguishable

Petitioner also did not place on record anything to demonstrate that contractual services of two employees referred to, by him had been regularized

Petitioner voluntarily appeared in test for the post of Deputy Director BS-18 and obtained only 37 out of 100 marks but still he demanded that he should be regularized in service on the strength of his contractual engagement regardless of his failure in test for regular employment in National Accountability Bureau, such was a mistaken perception

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant was appointed for a project on contract basis and plea raised by him was that due to length of service he had a right to be regularized in service

Validity

Appellant was employee on contract basis and could not claim to be retained in service for a longer period than as prescribed in contract of his service

Appellant was even otherwise proceeded due to his willful absence and authorities, after due diligence, exercised their powers to terminate his service

Once terms of service were accepted by appellant, he could not wriggle out of the same as he was estopped by his words and conduct to challenge terms and conditions

Appellant had no vested right to plead through Constitutional petition which was rightly dismissed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of the petitioners was that although they were not qualified on the date of advertisement but subsequently they attained the required qualification, therefore their termination was not justified

Validity

Neither the petitioners were qualified nor they had requisite experience when the posts were advertised

Petitioners being not having required qualification and experience had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria

Impugned termination orders were not arbitrary and perverse in circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Non-issuance of notice of hearing to the contractual employee would not entitle him for revival of his contract of service

In case of wrongful termination, the contractual employee could claim damages to the extent of un-expired period of his service before the competent court of law

Constitutional petition was not maintainable.

Departmental appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed as being contractual employee, he did not have the remedy of departmental appeal

Validity

In case of death of a civil servant, who died during service, one unemployed child of his, was to be appointed against a post

Term "post" provided in the Rr.16 & 17 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, was referable to the "post", which was being held by the deceased civil servant of the aspiring child for the appointment

Father of the petitioner was a regular employee in education department and his appointment on contract basis was alien to such scheme of law as provided under the R.17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974

In the present case, the petitioner (child of deceased civil servant) was treated as contract employee and was proceeded against in such capacity and his departmental appeal was also dismissed holding that contract employee had no right of appeal

All actions against the petitioner (child of deceased civil servant), while treating him as an employee on contract basis had lost their efficacy

Petitioner (child of deceased civil servant) was a regular employee and he was to be dealt with on any available disciplinary grounds by giving him a status of regular employee

Punitive actions taken against the petitioner were not sustainable, therefore the impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be re-instated in service

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner was not employee of the government rather he was employee of a public school which was not run by government but was governed by its Board of Directors

Petitioner was not employee of government and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 had not been enacted for such cases

Contractual employee working in public school not run by the government but by a Board of Directors could not become beneficiary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Law does not recognize any contract employee as civil servant.