Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Article 130(6) Cabinet Approval – Regularization of Posts – Financial Sanction Required The Supreme Court held that regularization of posts requires mandatory approval from the provincial cabinet under Article 130(6) of the Constitution. Cabinet approval is a collective responsibility and cannot be substituted by recommendations from cabinet sub-committees or any individual authority. Without proper budgetary sanction and adherence to the Rules of Business, such approvals lack legal validity. Cited Case: Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808) (b) Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 – Rules 15(1), 19(1), and 19(3) Financial Consultation – Prerequisites for Regularization – Sanctioned Posts Required Under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, no new posts can be created, nor can financial expenditures be authorized, without consultation and approval from the Finance Department. Rule 19(1) specifically mandates consultation when financial implications are involved. In this case, no such approval was obtained, rendering the claims for regularization unsustainable. Cited Case: Government Of Balochistan v. Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. (2024 SCMR 876) (c) Regularization – No Vested Right – Judicial Overreach The Court reaffirmed that regularization of contractual employees is not a vested right. It is contingent upon statutory or policy backing, budgetary allocations, and institutional needs. Courts cannot assume the role of appointing authorities or direct regularization without adherence to established procedures and approvals. Cited Cases: Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University v. Tanveer Ahmad (2022 PLC (C.S.) 85) Khushal Khan Khattak University v. Jabran Ali Khan (2021 SCMR 977) Vice-Chancellor Agriculture University v. Muhammad Shafiq (2024 PLC (C.S.) 323) (d) Judicial Interference – Separation of Powers The Court emphasized that judicial interference in executive functions, particularly in policy matters like employee regularization, risks disrupting governance and violating the trichotomy of powers. Courts must respect institutional autonomy and refrain from encroaching upon executive prerogatives. Cited Case: Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406) (e) Financial Implications – Budgetary Constraints The regularization of posts carries long-term financial implications. Without proper budgetary provisioning, sanctioned posts, and compliance with financial regulations, courts cannot compel the government to create posts or allocate funds through supplementary grants. Disposition: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Lahore High Court's impugned order. It ruled that the directions issued by the High Court for regularization and supplementary financial provisioning were beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to established legal principles.

Summary: (a) Service Law—Regularization of Contract Employees: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199; NADRA Regularization Policy, 2012 Regularization of contractual employees—Applicability of policy—Discriminatory treatment—Principle of equality under Article 25. The respondent, a contract employee of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) appointed under the disabled persons quota, was denied regularization solely because his service tenure fell three days short of the required one-year period stipulated under the NADRA Regularization Policy, 2012. The Supreme Court held that once a policy decision for regularization had been taken, it must be applied uniformly without arbitrary exclusions. The Court noted that other employees who similarly fell short of the one-year requirement had been regularized pursuant to previous High Court judgments, which had attained finality. Denial of regularization solely due to a minor shortfall in tenure violated Article 25 of the Constitution, which mandates equal protection of the law. The Court emphasized that a public authority cannot apply its policies in a discriminatory manner when similarly placed employees have been granted relief. (b) Constitutional Jurisdiction—Maintainability of Writ Petitions by Contract Employees: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199; Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979) Contractual employees—Scope of judicial review—Invocation of writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court distinguished the case from Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979), clarifying that the respondent was not challenging the terms of the NADRA policy but rather seeking its enforcement. The High Court had correctly assumed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioner was invoking NADRA’s own policy decision for regularization, rather than asserting an independent right to regularization. The Court reaffirmed that contractual employees ordinarily do not have a vested right to regularization, but where a department’s own policy grants such rights, the denial of regularization can be judicially reviewed to prevent arbitrary action. (c) Rights of Disabled Persons—Employment Protections: ----Disabled Persons (Employment & Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, S. 2(c), (d); United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006; Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 3, 25 & 38 Employment protections for disabled persons—State’s obligation—Principle of non-discrimination. The Court emphasized that disabled persons require special consideration in employment decisions, particularly where a regularization policy exists. The denial of regularization solely due to a minor technicality, despite the respondent’s satisfactory performance over an extended period, amounted to unfair treatment. The Court referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, which prohibits discrimination in employment and mandates inclusive and accessible work environments. The judgment also cited national legislation, including the Disabled Persons (Employment & Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, emphasizing the need for fair treatment and employment security for disabled persons. The Court stressed that public functionaries must act in good faith and avoid arbitrary exclusions in matters of employment rights for disabled individuals. (d) Rule of Consistency and Non-Discrimination in Public Employment: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 4 & 25; NWFP Public Service Commission v. Muhammad Arif (2011 SCMR 848); Fida Hussain v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 46) Principle of equal treatment—Rule of consistency—Protection against arbitrary employment decisions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule of consistency, holding that similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently without a valid justification. The Court observed that several other employees with less than one year of service had been regularized pursuant to earlier judgments, while the respondent was denied the same relief. Arbitrary application of policy amounts to discrimination, which is impermissible under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that public employment decisions must be fair, non-discriminatory, and in accordance with constitutional guarantees. (e) Procedural Objections—Non-Filing of Intra Court Appeal (ICA): ----Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, S. 3; Federal Board of Revenue v. Messrs. Hub Power Company Ltd. (PLD 2023 SC 207); Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2011 SC 132) Filing of an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) as a procedural requirement—Effect of bypassing ICA. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the High Court’s decision on the ground that NADRA had not filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) before directly approaching the Supreme Court. The Court held that while filing an ICA is a rule of practice, it does not oust or abridge the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, particularly when the case had been pending since 2021 and was heard on merits. The Court noted that while an ICA is generally preferred, failure to file one does not necessarily render a petition non-maintainable, especially in exceptional circumstances. ----Disposition: The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the High Court’s judgment. Leave to appeal was refused, and NADRA was directed to regularize the respondent’s employment in accordance with its policy.

Summary: ----Scope of Labour Court Jurisdiction—Regularization of Work-Charge Employees: Labour Courts and Appellate Tribunals lack jurisdiction to issue directions treating work-charge employees as civil servants, including instructions for preparation and issuance of service books. Regularized employees remain “permanent workmen” and not civil servants. Relevant Statutes: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, Section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. ----Applicability of Standing Orders, 1968 to Government Departments: A government department can be considered a ‘commercial’ or ‘industrial establishment’ under the Standing Orders, 1968 only if the functional nature of its work aligns with these definitions. Departments performing sovereign or administrative functions are excluded. Reference Case: Abdul Aziz vs. Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division (PLD 1996 SC 610). ----Employment in the Administration of the State: Not all employees of government departments are considered to be in the “administration of the State.” Distinction must be made between those engaged in governance roles and those performing non-sovereign duties. Relevant Clause: Section 1(3)(b), Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. ----Right to Regularization—Clause 1(b) of the Standing Orders, 1968: Employees with continuous service exceeding nine months are entitled to regularization under Clause 1(b) of the Standing Orders, 1968. Such rights are enforceable under Section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. Condition: The employing government department must qualify as an establishment under the law. ----Per-Incuriam Doctrine—Conflicting Precedents: Decisions in Sajjad Naseem (2022 PLC 44) and Farzana Basharat (2020 PLC 260) were declared per-incuriam as they did not consider the binding precedent in Abdul Aziz (PLD 1996 SC 610). ----Government Policy for Work-Charge Employees: Relevance: Policy Notification No. SO(ERB)5-44/2019/WC-DW-Policy of 29th January 2021, issued for the regularization of work-charge and daily-wage employees, must be considered in light of the Supreme Court directives in CP Nos. 3340-3344/2018. Petition Allowed: Orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal were set aside. Matters were remanded for re-determination on legal and jurisdictional issues, including whether government departments qualify as establishments under the relevant laws and compliance with regularization criteria. Direction to Appellate Tribunal: The tribunal is to decide cases independently and preferably within three months, considering both the legal framework and policy notifications.

Summary: (a) Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 – Section 3 & 4 Regularization of Contract Employees – Eligibility and Scrutiny Committee The Supreme Court held that the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, aims to regularize contract employees who have completed three years of continuous service. Eligibility must be determined through a Scrutiny Committee, which evaluates the academic records and credentials of contractual employees and forwards recommendations to the appointing authority. Cited Case: Mst. Nabila Niaz v. Secretary Health (2020 PLC (C.S.) 675) (b) Public Servants – Discrimination in Regularization – Equal Treatment Principle The Court emphasized that laws enacted for the benefit of contract employees must be applied uniformly without discrimination. Selective application or favoritism undermines the legislative intent and constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. Relevant Constitutional Provisions: Article 4, Article 3, Article 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (c) Jurisdiction – Writ Petitions and Article 212 of the Constitution The Supreme Court clarified that if employees are alleged to already hold regular civil servant status, their cases must still be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of their employment status. The matter cannot be summarily decided without proper scrutiny and recommendations by the Committee. (d) Scrutiny Committee – Role and Mandate The Scrutiny Committee holds a critical role under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, tasked with impartially examining the status, eligibility, and antecedents of contractual employees. The appointing authority must base its decision on the Committee's recommendations, ensuring adherence to statutory mandates. (e) Beneficial Legislation – Implementation Across the Board The Court observed that beneficial statutes like the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, must be implemented uniformly and without unnecessary delays. Ineffective implementation forces affected individuals to resort to prolonged litigation, burdening the judiciary unnecessarily. -------- Disposition: The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, upholding the Lahore High Court's order. The cases of the respondents must be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for impartial review and recommendations, ensuring compliance with the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Eligibility for Promotion Examination: ----Section Officers Promotional Examination – Requirement of Regular Service----Held, applicants for the Section Officers Promotional Examination (SOPE-2016) must have completed eight years of regular service in BS-11 to BS-16. Service interruptions, including dismissal and reinstatement, affect eligibility. Concealment of dismissal from service renders an application misleading and ineligible. ----Cited Cases: • Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq (2024 SCMR 527) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406) • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) (b) Administrative Law – Effect of Misrepresentation in Government Applications: ----Concealment of Dismissal from Service – Consequences for Promotion Eligibility----Held, an applicant who fails to disclose a prior dismissal from service in an official application to the FPSC violates the principles of transparency and good faith. Such concealment justifies rejection of candidature. FPSC acted within its authority by refusing participation in SOPE-2016. ----Cited Cases: • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Shahzad Iqbal (2021 SCMR 675) • Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Arif (2020 SCMR 507) • Muzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 304) (c) Constitutional Law – Judicial Review of FPSC Decisions: ----Scope of Judicial Review – No Interference in Transparent Recruitment Processes----Held, courts will not interfere with FPSC decisions unless there is a manifest illegality. Where an applicant has provided false information regarding service tenure, the FPSC’s rejection of candidature does not warrant judicial intervention. ----Cited Cases: • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) • Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 92) (d) Public Service Recruitment – Validity of Departmental Permission Certificates (DPC): ----Withdrawal of DPC Due to Misrepresentation – No Right to Challenge----Held, issuance of a Departmental Permission Certificate (DPC) does not validate an applicant’s eligibility if obtained through concealment of facts. A department has the authority to withdraw a DPC upon discovering misrepresentation. ---Cited Cases: • Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board v. Raheel Ali Gohar (2020 SCMR 2068) ----Disposition: (i) Appeal dismissed as the appellant did not meet the service requirement for SOPE-2016. (ii) FPSC acted lawfully in rejecting candidature due to concealment of dismissal from service. (iii) Withdrawal of the DPC by NH&MP was justified due to misrepresentation. (iv) The court declines to interfere with FPSC’s decision, emphasizing transparency in public service recruitment.

Summary: Background:Wajid Ali, the petitioner, sought the regularization of his services in the Punjab government. He was appointed on a contractual basis as Assistant Director (Records) BS-17 by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) following an advertisement and a requisition sent by the Secretary, Archives & Libraries Wing, S&GAD, Lahore. Despite completing the mandatory three-year service period required for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, his requests were ignored by the competent authority, prompting him to file the petition No. 68366 of 2023. The case was heard alongside connected and contempt petitions due to their common legal and factual issues.----Issues:Whether the petitioner's service should be regularized under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018.Whether the petitioner, despite the non-extension of his contract post-September 8, 2023, should be regularized based on his continuous service and the issuance of salary slips post-contract expiration.Whether the connected petition for writ of quo-warranto against the petitioner becomes infructuous given that he is no longer in service.Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated due to non-compliance with the court's previous order restraining the respondents from terminating the petitioner's services.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held in favor of the petitioner, directing the regularization of his service from the date of completion of his three-year tenure. The court found that the actions of the competent authority in delaying and denying the regularization were discriminatory and not in compliance with the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. The connected petition was deemed infructuous as the petitioner was no longer in service, and the court opted not to initiate contempt proceedings, choosing instead to exercise restraint.----Citations/Precedents:The Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, specifically Articles 4 (dealing with the right to be dealt with in accordance with law) and 25 (shield against discrimination).Ejaz Akbar Kasi v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (PLD 2011 S.C. 22): The Supreme Court's stance on non-discriminatory practices in regularization.Ikram Bari and others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another (2005 SCMR 100): Criteria for regularization of employees set by the Supreme Court.Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCMR 291): Case regarding the legitimate expectancy of contract employees for regularization.Mst. Ghulam Zuhra Jahangir and another v. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 8 others (2020 PLC(CS) 285): Discussion on legitimate expectancy in the context of service regularization.

Summary: (a) Employment Law – Regularization of Contractual Employees: ----Contract and Contingency-Based Employment – No Automatic Right to Regularization----Held, contractual employees have no vested right to regularization unless expressly provided by law, policy, or rules. Courts cannot direct regularization in the absence of a statutory basis. The claim that prolonged employment implies permanence is legally untenable. ----Cited Cases: • Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq (2024 SCMR 527) • Faraz Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 PLC 198) • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman and others (2022 SCMR 406) (b) Administrative Law – Prerogative of the Executive in Employment Matters: ----Judicial Review of Employment Policies – Scope and Limitations----Held, appointment and regularization of employees is a policy matter within the exclusive domain of the executive. Courts cannot issue directions for legislative action or compel the government to create permanent posts where no statutory requirement exists. ----Cited Cases: • Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Arif (2020 SCMR 507) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Shahzad Iqbal (2021 SCMR 675) • Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 92) (c) Constitutional Law – Non-Discrimination and Article 25: ----Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – No Entitlement to Permanent Employment----Held, the principle of equality under Article 25 does not apply where an initial act granting employment benefits is itself unlawful. Employees cannot claim regularization on the ground that similarly placed persons were unlawfully regularized in the past. ----Cited Cases: • Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566) • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) • Muzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 304) (d) Judicial Precedents – Effect of Interim Orders: ----Interim Orders of the Supreme Court – No Binding Effect----Held, interim orders of the Supreme Court do not constitute a final precedent and cannot be relied upon to override settled legal principles established in final judgments. ----Cited Cases: • Umar Farooq v. Sajjad Ahmed Qamar (2024 CPLA No. 210 of 2024) • Province of Sindh v. Dr. Bashir Ahmed & Others (C.A. No. 33-K & 34-K of 2016) ----Disposition: (i) Petition dismissed as no legal or statutory basis for regularization was demonstrated. (ii) The petitioners' claim that project-based employment should be deemed permanent is rejected. (iii) Courts cannot intervene in executive policy decisions regarding employment regularization.

Summary: ----Quote: (1) Concept of outsourcing of tasks through contractor & the Toll Manufacturing (2) Circumvention of labour laws to save money (3) ILO Conventions No.87, 98 & Section 91 of I.R.A., 2012 (4) Sham arrangement for supply of labour with outsource contractor (5) Effect of employer’s control or supervision on contractor employees. ----Background: This case involves a series of civil petitions filed by IFFCO Pakistan (Private) Limited against several respondents, who claimed to be employees of IFFCO and sought recognition as permanent employees with associated benefits. The respondents initially filed petitions before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA), arguing that they were not being recognized as permanent employees despite performing duties of a permanent nature. The NIRC ruled in favor of the respondents, a decision that was upheld by the Full Bench of the NIRC and later by the Sindh High Court. IFFCO subsequently sought leave to appeal these decisions in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents were employees of IFFCO Pakistan or merely contract workers employed by independent contractors. 2- Whether the NIRC had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter concerning workers allegedly employed through an independent contractor. 3- Whether the agreements between IFFCO and the contractors were genuine or a sham intended to circumvent labor laws. 4- Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefits and rights of permanent employees under the Industrial Relations Act. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by IFFCO Pakistan, refusing leave to appeal. The Court found that the respondents were indeed employees of IFFCO, despite the company's claims that they were employed by independent contractors. The Court based its decision on the following reasoning: Control and Supervision: The respondents were under the direct control and supervision of IFFCO, which provided raw materials and managed their day-to-day activities. The evidence showed that the respondents had been working within IFFCO’s premises for several years, performing duties of a permanent nature. Expired Agreements: The agreements presented by IFFCO as evidence of the respondents' employment through contractors were found to be expired, and no credible evidence was provided to support the claim that these agreements were still in effect. The Court noted that despite the expiry of these agreements, the respondents continued to work for IFFCO, suggesting a direct employment relationship. Sham Agreements: The Court held that the agreements with contractors appeared to be a sham, used as a device to deprive the respondents of their legitimate rights as employees. The Court emphasized that such arrangements should not be allowed to circumvent labor laws and exploit workers. Jurisdiction of NIRC: The Court affirmed that the NIRC had the jurisdiction to hear the case, as the respondents were effectively employees of IFFCO and not merely contract workers. The Supreme Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the NIRC and the Sindh High Court were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and were not manifestly erroneous or illegal. Therefore, there was no basis for the Supreme Court to interfere with the lower courts' decisions. ----Citations/Precedents: Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. vs. National Industrial Relations Commission & others (2013 SCMR 1253): The relationship of employer and employee can exist where an employer retains control over the work of a contractor’s employees. Abdul Ghafoor and others vs. The President National Bank of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 157): The Court disallowed the practice of labeling workers as contractors to evade labor laws. Messrs State Oil Company Limited vs. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181): Employment of workers by a contractor can be deemed a sham if the workers perform permanent duties for the company. Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited vs. Registrar of Trade Unions and others (2020 PLC 153): The Court reaffirmed that workers should not be deprived of their rights under labor laws through sham contracts. The decision reinforces the principle that employers cannot circumvent labor laws through sham arrangements and must recognize and uphold the rights of workers performing permanent duties within their organizations.

Summary: Issue: Whether Mukaram Khan, employed on a daily wage basis since 2016, is entitled to be declared a permanent employee of WAPDA.---Holding: The appeal and the CMA were dismissed, upholding the Single Bench's decision to declare Mukaram Khan a permanent employee.---Reasoning: The commission observed that Mukaram Khan's continuous service since 2016 and the nature of his post warranted permanent employment status under the Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Ordinance stipulates that a workman engaged in work of a permanent nature for more than nine months and having satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months acquires the status of a permanent workman. The commission referenced various Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that employees serving in a capacity for more than nine months against a regular post should be considered for regularization. The commission found no substantial grounds in WAPDA's appeal to overturn the Single Bench's well-reasoned order.---Significant Legal Principles Applied:Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968: Defines the criteria for a workman to be considered permanent based on the nature of work and duration of service.---Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan et al. vs. Muhammad Sajid and others (2019 PIC [CS] 539): The Supreme Court held that employees working continuously, even with artificial breaks to disrupt service continuity, are performing jobs of a permanent nature and are not serving in casual positions. Such employees are entitled to regularization.---Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others vs. Ahmad Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547): The Supreme Court declared that employees serving continuously for more than six months are governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and should be considered permanent employees.Abdul Ghaffar vs. President National Bank of Pakistan et al. (2018 PLC [CS] 383): The Court ruled that employees engaged for manual jobs and compensated monthly, who have served for more than one year (or several 8-9 month stints), are entitled to the regularization of their services.Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, DG Khan vs. Muhammad Altaf et al. (2018 PLC [CS] 647): The Supreme Court found that employees working in various capacities for a considerable period, on a daily wage basis, against regular posts, and with artificial breaks in service, are entitled to regularization.Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, DG Khan and another vs. Muhammad Altaf and others (2018 SCMR 325): The Court dismissed an appeal against the regularization of daily wage employees who had served for not less than nine months, noting that the employer had created artificial breaks in service to avoid regularization.These precedents collectively emphasize the judiciary's stance on the rights of employees to be regularized when they have served in positions of a permanent nature for a significant duration, highlighting the principle of fairness and continuity in employment practices.

Summary: Javed Iqbal, the respondent, was employed as a Bio-Medical Engineer on a contract basis with the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI), Lahore, since 04.02.2009. His contract was extended periodically. However, unlike other contract employees, Iqbal was not regularized. He filed Writ Petition, during which he was granted interim relief that his services would not be terminated until further notice. Despite this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, leading to his suspension and eventually dismissal from service on 05.05.2021. His departmental appeal against the dismissal was rejected on 21.03.2022. --- The main issue was whether the disciplinary actions taken against the respondent, leading to his dismissal and the subsequent rejection of his appeal, were justifiable in light of the interim relief granted by the High Court and the procedural and substantive aspects of his employment and dismissal --- The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Lahore High Court's judgment that reinstated Javed Iqbal with all back benefits and directed the consideration of his regularization. ---The Supreme Court found no irregularity or perversity in the High Court's judgments. It noted that the allegations against Iqbal regarding poor performance and misconduct were not substantiated by evidence, as his performance evaluations from 2009 to 2020 were satisfactory. The Court also highlighted the mala fide intentions of the petitioners, evidenced by the timing of the disciplinary actions, which were initiated after Iqbal had sought legal redress. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court had thoroughly addressed all legal and factual aspects of the case. --- The judgment underscores the importance of fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings, especially when an employee is under the protection of interim relief granted by a court. It also emphasizes the need for employers to substantiate allegations against employees with clear and convincing evidence. --- This case reaffirms the judiciary's role in protecting employee rights against arbitrary and unjust disciplinary actions, particularly in the context of contractual employment within public institutions. It also highlights the need for administrative bodies to act in good faith and adhere to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.