Summary: ''The process of regularization requires backing of any law, rules or policy. Any regularization without the backing of law offends the principles of fairness, transparency and meritocracy and that too at the expense of public exchequer'' --- The core issue revolves around whether these employees, who served as Class IV employees from 2009 to 2012, are entitled to be considered permanent employees with all associated back benefits, despite their initial contractual status.The High Court had previously ruled in favor of the respondents (the contractual employees), directing their regularization in line with previous similar judgments. However, this decision was challenged, leading to the present appeal.The judgment meticulously discusses the principles and legal precedents governing the regularization of contractual employees. It emphasizes that there is no inherent right for contractual employees to be regularized unless there is a specific legal or policy framework supporting such a move. The court referenced several precedents, including "Province of Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development, Government of Punjab v. Dr. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 767)" and "Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 1691)", to underscore that regularization should be a transparent process, grounded in an assessment of the employee's performance and the availability of permanent positions.The judgment also delves into the concept of institutional autonomy, arguing that courts should refrain from interfering in policy matters of educational institutions, including employment policies, unless such policies violate constitutional rights. This stance is supported by references to international principles, such as those outlined in the Magna Charta Universaitum 2020.Ultimately, the court concluded that the impugned judgments, which had favored the regularization of the respondents, were not in line with established legal principles and precedents. As a result, these judgments were set aside, and the petitions filed by the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, were allowed, effectively overturning the High Court's directives for regularization.

Summary: Background:This case involves multiple civil appeals (Nos. 26-K to 38-K of 2021) against a common judgment dated 08.04.2021 by the Sindh High Court, Karachi, which dismissed various constitutional petitions related to the regularization of services. The appellants, initially appointed on a contract basis as Deputy District Attorneys and other positions, sought regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. Despite fulfilling the criteria and being in service, their regularization was not processed, prompting them to approach the High Court. The High Court, while dismissing their petitions, also declared the 2013 Act ultra vires (beyond the powers) without the appellants challenging the Act?s validity.----Issues:Whether the appellants, being contractual employees, were entitled to regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013.Whether the Sindh High Court could declare the 2013 Act ultra vires without it being directly challenged and in the absence of any aggrieved parties challenging its validity.------Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court found that the Sindh High Court had overreached its jurisdiction by declaring the 2013 Act ultra vires when the appellants had not challenged the Act's validity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court does not possess suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution similar to the Supreme Court's under Article 184(3). The judgment by the High Court affected the rights of numerous employees already regularized or under consideration for regularization without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process.The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have confined its decision to whether the appellants were entitled to regularization under the 2013 Act, rather than delving into the validity of the Act itself. The Supreme Court underscored the principle that courts should aim to uphold laws rather than striking them down, ensuring not to overstep their jurisdictional bounds.-----Citations/Precedents:Dr. Imran Khattak v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, establishing limits on judicial jurisdiction.Jahanzaib Malik v. Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, on the High Court's lack of suo motu jurisdiction.Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others v. Muhammad Habib Wahab Al-Khairi and others, regarding the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.Raja Muhammad Nadeem v. The State and another, Mian Irfan Bashir v. The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and others, and M/s Sadiq Poultry (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, all reinforcing the High Court's lack of suo motu jurisdiction and the principle of judicial restraint.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, the Secretary of School Education, Government of Punjab, challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had granted the respondents (Graduate Primary Teachers appointed in 1995) a "selection grade" based on their claim that they were entitled to financial benefits due to their long-term service. The respondents were regularized in 2004 and sought the selection grade, which they claimed was due under Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977, and a notification issued in 1983. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents, as Graduate Primary Teachers, were entitled to a selection grade based on Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977, and the 1983 notification. 2- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal was correct in granting the selection grade despite no specific policy covering Graduate Primary Teachers. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Court held that: --No Entitlement to Selection Grade: The respondents could not prove any government policy entitling Graduate Primary Teachers to a selection grade. Rule 8(3) of the 1977 Rules applied only when a higher pay scale had been sanctioned for a class of posts, which was not the case for Graduate Primary Teachers. The 1983 notification also did not include their post for the purposes of selection grade. --Role of Policy in Granting Selection Grade: The Court clarified that the grant of a selection grade is not a right under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, nor under the relevant service rules. It is within the executive's discretion to formulate such a policy, and no tribunal or court can compel the government to create such a policy. Since no policy covered Graduate Primary Teachers for selection grade, the tribunal overstepped by granting it. --Withdrawn Policy & Retrospective Regularization: Even if the policy had included Graduate Primary Teachers, the respondents were not regularized during its enforcement. Therefore, they could not claim retrospective benefits from a withdrawn policy. The Tribunal was wrong in granting selection grade based on a withdrawn policy that never applied to the respondents' post. As a result, the petitions were converted into appeals, and the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. ----Citations/Precedents: Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 130(6), 199 & 240 – Executive Authority, Cabinet Responsibility, and Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters - Judicial interference with executive discretion—Scope—Held, High Court acted without jurisdiction in directing the provincial government to regularize 236 contractual employees and create provisioning from the supplementary grant—Court failed to appreciate that such regularization required prior approval of both the provincial cabinet and the finance department—Under Art.130(6), budgetary and policy decisions are the collective responsibility of the cabinet and cannot be exercised unilaterally or on the basis of recommendations by sub-committees—Regularization constitutes a policy matter lying exclusively within executive domain; judicial orders usurping this role violate the trichotomy of powers. (b) Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 – Rr. 15, 19 & 25 – Cabinet Approval and Financial Sanction as Prerequisites for Regularization - Lack of cabinet and finance department approval—Effect—Held, recommendations of the cabinet sub-committee regarding regularization were provisional and lacked legal effect absent formal ratification by the cabinet—Finance department’s non-concurrence further rendered the proposed creation of posts and budget allocation void—Rules 15 and 19 mandate consultation with finance department for any change affecting provincial finances—Rule 25 requires full cabinet ratification of sub-committee decisions—Non-compliance with these rules invalidates any purported approval for regularization. (c) Employment Law – Regularization of Contractual Employees – No Vested Right Without Statutory Framework - Regularization as a matter of right—Scope—Held, no vested right to regularization arises in absence of statutory support—Employees hired on contract basis cannot claim regularization merely on the basis of long service or administrative recommendations—Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 and its amendment of 2019 found inapplicable—Posts in question not sanctioned and had no service rules governing them—Judicial precedents including Tanveer Ahmad, Jabran Ali Khan and Muhammad Shafiq reaffirmed that regularization requires sanctioned posts, fulfillment of codal formalities, and approval of competent authority—Courts cannot compel creation of posts or allocation of funds absent legal foundation. (d) Suo Motu Case re Zakat Department Employees – Scope and Relevance - Zakat paid staff—Regularization of services—Held, this Court in earlier suo motu proceedings observed that the peculiar nature of service in the Zakat and Ushr Department does not merit blanket regularization—Left the matter to the discretion of provincial governments—High Court failed to consider that the employees in question worked part-time and were not on sanctioned posts—No legal or constitutional right to regularization established on facts. (e) Judicial Review – Limits of Constitutional Jurisdiction under Art. 199 - Court directing executive to create posts and finance them—Legality—Held, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively acting as appointing authority—Such directions amount to encroachment upon policy-making function reserved for the executive—Judicial power does not extend to mandating fiscal decisions or institutional restructuring—Courts may only review executive action for legality, arbitrariness, or violation of fundamental rights—not substitute administrative judgment with judicial command. Disposition: Civil Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order of Lahore High Court set aside for being beyond jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles regarding regularization.

Summary: Background:The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in Constitution Petition No. 1120 of 2017. The High Court directed the appellants to regularize the services of the respondents and pay them arrears of salaries and allowances.---Issues:Whether the appellants were competent to regularize the services of the respondents.Whether the High Court's judgment was lawful and sustainable.Whether the respondents were entitled to regularization.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that appointments to posts in BPS-16 and above fell within the purview of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC) as per Rule 9(1)(a) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, and Rule 3(i)(a) of the BPSC Functions Rules, 1982. Therefore, the appellants were not competent to regularize the services of the respondents without the involvement of the BPSC.The Court found that the High Court's decision lacked a legal basis and was unsustainable. The respondents' regularization was not supported by law, and the decision was based on discrimination.The respondents' case fell within the purview of the AP&T Rules and BPSC Functions Rules, mandating recruitment through the BPSC. Therefore, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the Government of Balochistan was directed to refer the posts to the BPSC for recruitment through fresh publication on open merit basis. The respondents were directed to participate in the recruitment process, and age limit restrictions were waived for them.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, was appointed as a Lecturer on a temporary basis by the Principal of Government College, Landi Kotal, Khyber Agency, against a fixed remuneration of Rs.5000/-. The appointment was not made through a transparent process, nor was it advertised for inviting applications from eligible candidates. The remuneration was paid from the Agency Development Fund, not by the Government. The petitioner sought regularization of his service, which was initially granted but later contested and revoked based on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The Peshawar High Court dismissed his constitutional petition challenging this revocation, leading to the current appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner's appointment was made through a transparent and competitive process. 2- Whether the petitioner qualifies as an 'employee' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. 3- Whether the revocation of the petitioner's regularization was lawful. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. ---Non-Transparent Appointment: The petitioner’s appointment was not made through a competitive and transparent process. It was made by the Principal of the College, without public advertisement and was paid from the Agency Development Fund. Such appointments are void as they violate principles of transparency and fairness. ---Definition of 'Employee': Under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, an 'employee' is defined as an ad hoc or contract employee appointed by the Government. The petitioner was not appointed by the Government or a Government Department, and his remuneration came from contingencies, excluding him from the definition of 'employee' eligible for regularization under the Act. ---Lawful Revocation: The competent authority’s decision to revoke the petitioner's regularization was based on the correct application of the Act. The petitioner did not meet the criteria set out in the Act for regularization. The revocation, therefore, was lawful and unassailable. The petition was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law warranting the Court's consideration. ----Citations/Precedents: Govt of NWFP and others v. Muhammad Tufail Khan (PLD 2004 SC 313) Emphasized the necessity of a transparent and competitive process in government appointments. Chief Secretary Punjab and others v. Abdul Raoof Dasti (2006 SCMR 1876) Highlighted the requirement for transparency and merit in public service appointments. Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana and others v. Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1159) Stressed that appointments violating transparency and competitive principles are void. Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 132) Reinforced the sanctity of selecting qualified and deserving individuals through a fair and transparent process.

Summary: Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and the Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable to employees recruited on work-charge basis by Government Departments having statutory rules with respect to regularization.

Summary: (a) A demand for grant not approved by the Provincial Cabinet and introduction in pursuance thereof in Provincial Assembly, cannot be passed by Provincial Assembly. Assembly cannot generate any such demand for grant, itself.(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees of Transport Department (Regularization of Services) Act 2022 as well as the subsequent Amendment Act were declared to be invalid laws not being passed in conformity with Article 115, 120 and Article 240 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.(c) When a statue is not found to be a valid law, then the principle of reading down cannot be resorted to, rather such a statute has to be declared invalid, ultra vires being in conflict with provisions of the Constitution.

Summary: Once the age relaxation order issued by the appointing authority was acted upon and the service contract period was completed, the vested right accrued and the regularization of service under the relevant Notification cannot be denied under the principle of locus poenitentiae.

Summary: (Discussion on the definition of employee under Section 2 (b) and Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. Doctrine of estoppel, finality and res judicata) In the present case, the appellant claimed that he had opted for a pension scheme offered by the KPK Small Industries Development Board during his employment. However, he alleged that he was being discriminated against because other employees who had chosen the pension scheme were receiving their pensions, but he was not. The appellant argued that the denial of pensionary benefits violated various articles of the Constitution of Pakistan, including Articles 4, 11, 25, and 27. He contended that he had served the respondents for a long period, and the refusal to grant him a pension while allowing it for other regular employees amounted to discrimination. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the appellant was a project employee and not entitled to pensionary benefits. They relied on a previous judgment of the Supreme Court, which held that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, did not apply to project employees. The Supreme Court heard the arguments and examined the provisions of the 2009 Act, which defined the eligibility for regularization of services. It found that project employees were excluded from the definition of "employee" under the Act and, therefore, could not claim regularization. The Court also considered the doctrine of estoppel and other related doctrines, noting that the appellant himself had sought regularization in the previous litigation. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, stating that there was no cause of action for him to re-litigate the issue of his employment status and claim pensionary benefits.