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: Issues: Whether the policy decision to reduce the promotion quota for Soil Conservation Assistants and allocate 25% to Field Assistants is ultra vires to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servant Act, 1973, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1989. Whether the impugned notification violates the fundamental rights or is against public interest. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the decision of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal. The key points in the reasoning are: 1. Policy Decision and Legal Framework: The court held that the policy decision made by the department to amend the promotion quota was within the legal framework of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servant Act, 1973, and the Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer Rules, 1989. The department has the authority to set criteria and allocate quotas for promotions based on the needs and exigencies of the service. 2. Judicial Review of Policy Decisions: The court emphasized that the judiciary's role in reviewing policy decisions is limited. Courts can intervene only if the policy is found to be ultra vires, discriminatory, or violative of fundamental rights. In this case, the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the policy change infringed upon their rights or was against the law. 3. Promotion and Eligibility: The court reiterated that promotion is not a vested right but rather depends on eligibility and fitness determined by the relevant authority. The adjustment of quotas to include Field Assistants was a decision made to harmonize promotion criteria and does not warrant judicial interference. The court concluded that the amendments made to the promotion quota were within the department's discretion and did not violate any laws or the petitioners' rights. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. ----Citations: Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCMR 696) Civil servants can claim consideration for promotion but not the promotion itself as a right. Fida Hussain vs. The Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad (PLD 1995 SC 701) The government can determine the sufficiency of qualifications for promotion. Maula Bux Shaikh vs. Chief Minister Sindh (2018 SCMR 2098) Promotion rules and criteria fall within the government's domain. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs. Hayat Hussain (2016 SCMR 1021) The government can amend service rules in the interest of expediency. Federal Public Service Commission vs. Shiraz Manzoor (2024 PLC (C.S.) 18) The competent authority can formulate and change recruitment policies.

Summary: The petitioner, Munawar Hussain Toori, a member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), sought equitable compensation in perks and privileges akin to those received by other Members of NIRC, particularly those equivalent to District & Sessions Judges in other provinces, alleging discrimination in violation of the equality clause (Article 25) of the Constitution of Pakistan.----Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same perks and privileges as other NIRC Members in different provinces, given his qualifications and the terms of his appointment.Whether the petitioner's treatment concerning perks and privileges constitutes discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that he was unjustly treated differently from his counterparts in other provinces, which constituted a violation of the equality clause contained in Article 25 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that public functionaries must act equitably and without discrimination, a principle enshrined in the Constitution and supported by substantial jurisprudence. The court held that the petitioner?s entitlement to perks and privileges should align with those of similarly placed individuals, particularly other NIRC members, including retired District & Sessions Judges. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to adjust the petitioner's perks and privileges accordingly and to pay the arrears.----Citations/Precedents:Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Finance Department, Lahore v. Mubarik Ali Khan and others [PLD 1993 Supreme Court 375]Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore v. Syed Riaz Ali Zaidi [2016 PLC (C.S.) 1074]Abdul Haleem Siddiqui and others v. Federation of Pakistan [2019 PLC (C.S.) 238]Muhammad Wassay Tareen v. Government of Balochistan [2023 PLC (C.S.) 457]Abdul Malik v. Director General (D.G.) Quetta Development Authority (QDA) [2023 PLC (C.S.) Note 63]Saleem Ahmad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [2023 PLC (C.S.) 1043]Muhammad Nasir Mahmood and another v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2009 Supreme Court 107]Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan [2022 SCMR 1691]Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan [2022 SCMR 201]Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2010 Supreme Court 265]Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad v. Anwarul Haq Ahmed and others [2013 SCMR 1687]Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Nasir v. Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad [1997 SCMR 1026]Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Syed Sadiq Shah and others [2021 SCMR 747]

Summary: Background:In Civil Appeal No. 3-L of 2016, the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, and others (appellants) challenged an order from the Punjab Service Tribunal that favored Waris Ali (deceased), represented by his legal representatives (respondents). The Tribunal's decision, dated 04.03.2015, allowed Waris Ali's appeal regarding his claim for proforma promotion to the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) and Sub-Inspector (SI).----Issues:Whether Waris Ali was entitled to proforma promotions based on the promotions of those he claimed were his juniors.Interpretation and application of the Police Rules, 1934, concerning promotions based on mandatory training courses.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ayesha A. Malik delivered the judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the respondents had not established that the personnel purported to be juniors were indeed junior to Waris Ali. Additionally, the Court emphasized that promotions in the police force depend strictly on the completion of stipulated training courses, as outlined in Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934.The Court underscored that the promotions of the individuals in question were not out of turn but based on their completion of necessary training and courses before Waris Ali. Thus, the claim for proforma promotion from the dates these individuals were promoted was unfounded and contrary to the regulations governing police promotions.----Citations/Precedents:Syed Hammad Nabi v. Inspector General of Police (2023 SCMR 584): This case was cited to support the principle that promotions within the police should be based on the completion of required training and adherence to established service rules, rather than seniority alone.---Quote: ''For the promotion of upper subordinates in the police force, training as per Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934 is mandatory and promotion will take effect once the requirement of law is fulfilled. An effort should be made to change the culture by emphasizing knowledge, skill, and performance because the police cannot thrive if it is consistently consumed in litigation for promotion and other service-related benefits.''

Summary: Background:Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Mst. Gui Lalai, along with five other class-IV employees of the education department, challenged an order issued by Respondent No.3, the District Education Officer Female Dir Upper, dated 31.03.2023. The order withdrew the appointment orders of the petitioners "till further orders" based on a purported ban on posting/transfers of civil servants, allegedly imposed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The petitioners contended that the withdrawal of their appointment orders was illegal, unconstitutional, against the law, and infringed upon their rights.---Issues:Whether the withdrawal of the appointment orders by Respondent No.3 was justified under the purported ban on posting/transfers of civil servants by the ECP.Whether the petitioners' appointments were made in compliance with the relevant procedures and regulations, rendering the withdrawal of their appointment orders unlawful.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Upon review, the court found that the appointment process for the class-IV employees had commenced prior to the imposition of the alleged ban by the ECP. The appointments were made following due process, including advertisement, application processing, and selection committee meetings. The appointment orders were issued on 15.02.2023 and 28.02.2023, whereas the ban notification from the ECP was dated 15th December 2023, indicating that the appointments preceded the ban. Furthermore, the impugned order appeared to be a suspension order rather than a withdrawal of appointment orders, as it stated "till further orders," suggesting a temporary halt due to the ban.The court referenced the case of Shamsul Haq vs. District Health Officer and others (2017 PLC(CS) Note_22), where it was held that appointments made before the ban's imposition did not violate the ban's terms. The court emphasized that once the ban was lifted, there was no justification for withholding the petitioners' appointments, especially when there was no apparent illegality in the process.In light of the above, the court ruled that the withdrawal of the petitioners' appointment orders was unjustified and unwarranted after the ban was lifted on 4th March 2024. The court cited the case of Farooq Utnar and others vs. Inspector-General of Prisons and another (2009 PLC(CS) 195), which emphasized that arbitrary withdrawal of appointment orders after the petitioners had already joined duty was illegal.---Citations/Precedents:Shamsul Haq vs. District Health Officer and others (2017 PLC(CS) Note_22)Farooq Utnar and others vs. Inspector-General of Prisons and another (2009 PLC(CS) 195)---Quote:''When the petitioners were appointed in accordance with the law, they have assumed the charge, valuable rights were accrued in their favour especially when no ban was existing on the date when the advertisement was published, the date on which the recommendations were made, the date on which the appointments were made and the date on which the charge was assumed by the petitioners thus, neither the impugned order could be issued nor justified. In addition to the above, when no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners nor they were served with any notice and when the services of the petitioners were not terminated rather through impugned order, the order of appointment was withdrawn till further orders, thus, the provision of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could not be attracted against the petitioners.''

Summary: Which classes of employees can approach which court? This case involves multiple appeals and petitions directed against various judgments of the Lahore High Court related to disputes over employment matters at the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank, Ltd. The core of these disputes revolved around the maintainability of writ petitions filed by employees of the bank under Article 199 of the Constitution, in the absence of statutory service rules. ----Issues: 1. Whether the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank's internal Staff Service Rules, 2010, can be considered statutory, thereby allowing employees to seek redress in the High Court under Article 199. 2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions filed by the bank's employees given the non-statutory nature of the service rules. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals and dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank's service rules were not statutory. The court clarified that such internal rules do not confer jurisdiction upon the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that disputes arising under non-statutory rules do not meet the threshold for constitutional jurisdiction and should be addressed in civil courts or through internal mechanisms as provided by the employer. ----Citations/Precedents: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 SCMR 1279) Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore and 3 others v. Messrs S.M. Ahmad and Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad (1999 SCMR 138) PIAC v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676) PIAC v. Syed Suleman Alam Rizvi (2015 SCMR 1545) Abdul Wahab v. HBL (2013 SCMR 1383) Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority v. Lt.Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) Syed Nazir Gilani v. Pakistan Red Crescent Society (2014 SCMR 982)

Summary: Background:The case originates from a series of civil petitions filed by the Government of Balochistan against the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal dated May 3, 2023. The Tribunal's decision involved multiple service appeals concerning the appointment and subsequent withdrawal of employment for several individuals in the Forest and Wildlife Department. These appointments were initially made through a formal recruitment process, but were abruptly rescinded twenty days later without issuing any show cause notices or opportunities for a hearing.----Issues:Whether the appointments were made without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements and thus could be rightfully withdrawn.Whether the withdrawal of the appointment letters without show cause notices or opportunities for hearing was a violation of the principles of natural justice.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process had been conducted properly over several phases, involving the advertisement of positions, the screening of applications, and interviews by a duly constituted Departmental Recruitment Committee. The court noted that the respondents had been recommended for appointment in a legitimate process and had begun their duties accordingly.The court further observed that the sudden cancellation of the appointments without due process violated the principles of natural justice. It found that the employees had acquired certain vested rights through their appointment, which could not be arbitrarily rescinded without proper justification and due process.Ultimately, the court declined to grant leave for appeal, upholding the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed verification of all academic credentials and employment status of the respondents before any back benefits could be activated, reflecting a balanced approach to the enforcement of procedural and substantive rights.----Citations/Precedents:Balochistan Employee Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011: Relevant for departmental proceedings.Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009: Governs the formation and operation of the recruitment committee.Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another vs Fida Muhammad and others (2022 SCMR 1583): A precedent case considered similar in context and applied in reasoning.

Summary: PLJ 2024 TrC (Services) 38 [Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad] Present Asim Akram and Muhammad Mushtaq Jadoon Members RAB NAWAZ KHAN DIRECTOR FSL (BRS 18) PESHAWAR - - Appellant versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division Islamabad etc - - Respondents Appeal No 615 (P) CS of 2019 decided on 312023 Police Rules 1985 - - - - - - Rr 7 11 (c) - - Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) Ss 8 8 (4) - - Appellant was serving as SP - - Promotion was deferred - - Departmental appeal - - Late encaderment - - Incomplete record - - Entitlement for promotion from date of regular appointment - - Seniority in a post service or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted shall be effective from date of regular appointment to that post provided that civil servants who are selected for promotion to a higher post in one batch shall on their promotion to higher post retain their inter - se seniority as in lower post - - Delay on part of Provinces in forwarding cases for encadrement as soon as PPOs have been promoted to BS - 18 and non convening of meeting by Establishment Division tantamounts to wrongful prevention of Provincial Police Officers for no fault of theirs - - The appellant was deferred due to incomplete record - - Deferment is technical disability of temporary nature - - Non - consideration of appellants case by DPC for almost three years when deficiency was met and PERs record was provided by provincial government is unexplainable and depriving appellant of his lawful right - - Appeal accepted [Pp 43 46 49] A B C D 2022 SCMR 1471 2015 SCMR 365 1985 SCMR 1158 ref Mr Muhammad Zafar Tahirkheli Advocate for Appellant Mr Tariq Umer PCU Mr Nadeem Arshad SO (Litigation) as DRsJudgement Result:Appeal accepted

Summary: IssuesWhether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the service appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability and non-prosecution.Whether the change in the seniority list dated 04.06.2003 was lawful and justified.Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide on matters related to the seniority of judicial officers.Whether the prolonged pendency of the service appeal for 19 years without a decision on merits constituted an injustice.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal?s dismissal of the service appeal for non-maintainability was erroneous. The Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3-B of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to decide matters related to the terms and conditions of service of members of the subordinate judiciary.The Tribunal?s decision to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution also created serious inconvenience for the petitioner, preventing him from seeking the restoration of the appeal.The Court emphasized the importance of the right to appeal and the obligation of appellate forums to explore questions of law and facts thoroughly to ensure justice.The Court highlighted the significant delay of 19 years in deciding the service appeal, stressing the need for timely adjudication of such matters to avoid frustration and despondence among judicial officers.The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal?s impugned order dated 05.03.2022, converted the civil petition into an appeal, and remanded the matter to the Sindh Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.----Citations/Precedents:Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973Section 2(bb): Definition of a member of the subordinate judiciarySection 3-B: Establishment of a Tribunal for members of the subordinate judiciarySection 4: Right of appealSection 5: Powers of the TribunalGul Taiz Khan Marwat v. Registrar Peshawar High Court, (PLD 2021 SC 391)Bashir Ahmed Badini, D&SJ & others v. Hon?ble Chairman & Member of Administration Committee and Promotion Committee of Hon?ble High Court of Balochistan, (2022 SCMR 448=2022 PLC (C.S) 610)Homoeo Dr. Asma Noreen Syed v. Government of the Punjab through its Secretary Health, Department & others, (2022 SCMR 1546=2022 PLC (C.S) 1390)

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.