Muhammad Bilal Raza & 11 others Vs Govt. of the Punjab etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 6349 of 2026 Muhammad Bilal Raza, etc.

Versus Government of the Punjab, etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing: 29.10.2026 Petitioners by: In this Constitutional Petition and connected W.P. Nos.58486 of 2026, 20027 of 2026, 17783 of 2026, 9164 of 2026, 64024 of 2026, 21597 of 2026, 34825 of 2026, 39884 of 2026, 26172 of 2026, 17417 of 2026, 20027 of 2026 Malik Shahid Iqbal Awan, Advocate. in W.P. Nos.39869 and 39876 of 2025 M/s Muhammad Ali Johri and Muhammad Shahzad Hanif Mayo, Advocates. in W.P. No.23043 of 2026 Mr. Hassan Raza Sheikh, Advocate. in W.P. No.52311 of 2026 Mr. Muhammad Kashif Saeed Bhatti, Advocate. in W.P. Nos.33317, 58486 and 25833 of 2026 Mr. Shafqat Abbas Awan, Advocate. in W.P. Nos.52136 of 2025, 57408 of 2026 Mr. Riaz Hussain Haleem, Advocate. in W.P. No.49429 of 2026 Mr. Allah Nawaz Khan Khosa, Advocate. in W.P. No.53628 of 2026 Ch. Fiaz Ahmad Singhairah, Advocate. in W.P. No.21047 of 2026 Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Abbasi, Advocate. in W.P. Nos.7141 of 2026, 3534 of 2026 & 9829 of 2026, Crl. Org. No.59796-W of 2025. Rana Rashid Akram Khan, Advocate. in W.P. No.33452 of 2025

Syed Tahir Abbas, Advocate.

in W.P. No.23043 of 2026 Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Mian, Advocate.

Respondents by: For Government of the Punjab Mr. Imran Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab For Respondents/District Health Authorities.

Mr. Patras Ghouri, Law Officer, o/o CEO, DHA, Okara, Kanwar Sajid, Law Officer, DHA, Sheikhupura, Saad Anwar, Law Officer, o/o CEO, DHA, Gujranwala, Mukhtar Ahmad, Health Educator, DHA, Hafizabad, Shafique Ahmad Asif, Law Officer, o/o CEO, DHA, Faisalabad and Dr. Naima Ashraf, DHO (PS) Chiniot, DHA Chiniot.

KHALID ISHAQ, J. Through this single order, I intend to decide the captioned Constitutional Petition as well as following connected Petitions as the facts forming background for filing all these Constitutional Petitions are identical and more particularly relate to common questions of law:- i. W.P. No.33452 of 2025 ii. W.P. No.39869 of 2025 iii. W.P. No.3534 of 2026 iv. W.P. No.7141 of 2026 v. W.P. No.9164 of 2026 vi. W.P. No.9829 of 2026 vii. W.P. No.17417 of 2026 viii. W.P. No.17783 of 2026 ix. W.P. No.20027 of 2026 x. W.P. No.21047 of 2026 xi. W.P. No.21597 of 2026 xii. W.P. No.23043 of 2026 xiii. W.P. No.25833 of 2026 xiv. W.P. No.26172 of 2026 xv. W.P. No.33317 of 2026 xvi. W.P. No.34825 of 2026 xvii. W.P. No.39884 of 2026 xviii. W.P. No.49429 of 2026 xix. W.P. No.52136 of 2026 xx. W.P. No.52311 of 2026 xxi. W.P. No.53628 of 2026 xxii. W.P. No.57408 of 2026 xxiii. W.P. No.58486 of 2026 xxiv. W.P. No.64024 of 2026 xxv. W.P. No. 39876 of 2025

2.The common strand in all these Constitutional Petitions, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the “Constitution”), is the Petitioners’ pursuit for enforcement of their rights

claimed under the Policy, 2021/Notification bearing No.SO(ERB)5- 44/2019/WC-DW-Policy dated 29.01.2021 (the “Policy, 2021”), issued by the Government of the Punjab, Services and General Administration Department (Regulations/O&M Wing) (“S&GAD”). The Policy, 2021 was issued pursuant to the approval of the Provincial Cabinet and is required to be implemented by all the Administrative Departments of the Government of the Punjab as a policy framework for Work Charged Employees, Daily Wagers and Contingent Paid Staff. The Petitioners of all these Constitutional Petitions claim that they were appointed as Daily Wagers and fulfil the criteria and preconditions for being considered and conferred upon the status of “Permanent Workmen” in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “The Province of Punjab v. Ahmad Hussain” (2013 SCMR 1547) as well as the provisions contained in the Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (“Standing Orders, 1968”). The Reliance has been placed upon the Judgment in Ahmad Hussain’s case supra and Paragraph No.3, Clauses-ii, iii, vi & vii, read with Paragraph No.4, Clauses-iii & viii of the Policy, 2021 to contend that since the Petitioners were appointed as Daily Wagers and were engaged in work of a permanent nature which lasted for much more than nine months, expanding to more than 7-8 years in most cases, therefore, by virtue of Clause-iii of Paragraph No.3 of the Policy, 2021, they have attained the status of permanent workmen and are entitled to all benefits as such being permanent workmen. Though these grounds are common, however, there are certain distinct facts of each case, therefore, it is imperative to layout those facts separately with some necessary details, which details and facts are explicated herein below.

Captioned Constitutional Petition (W.P. No.6349 of 2026) (Muhammad Bilal Raza, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

3.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide respective Appointment Letters issued in the Years 2016/2019 for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of District Health Authority (“DHA”), Sargodha. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to 13.12.2025. It is the case of the Petitioners

that no written orders were passed after 13.12.2025, however, verbal orders were conveyed directing to lay off the Petitioners but the Petitioners are still rendering their services as Daily Wagers. The Petitioners have also agitated the ground of discrimination while referring to various letters issued by the Respondents/Department whereby, many similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioners have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The reliance is placed upon Office Orders dated 24.01.2024, 27.01.2022 and 29.01.2025 among many other letters issued in different districts of the Province, whereby, the status of “Permanent Workmen” has been conferred upon similarly placed persons/Daily Wagers, however, the Petitioners have allegedly been discriminated against. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(i)W.P. No.33452 of 2025 (Muhammad Waheed, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

4.Petitioners No.1 to 5 were appointed as Data Entry Operators, whereas Petitioners No.6 to 8 were appointed as Sanitary Workers on daily wage basis vide their respective Appointment Letters issued in the Year 2017 for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHA, Khushab. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to 31.01.2023, when the Petitioners filed representation for their appointment as Permanent Workmen or extension of their appointments, however, the representation was declined. Consequently, the Petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing W.P. No. 37479 of 2024, which Constitutional Petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2024, whereby, the order passed by the Respondent/Authority, declining to confer the status of permanent workmen upon the Petitioners was set aside and the Respondents/Authorities were directed to decide the representations of the Petitioners in terms of the Policy, 2021, after hearing the Petitioners and all other concerned through a speaking order, within a period of 60 days. The direction issued by this Court was not complied with, within the stipulated time, constraining the Petitioners to file a contempt petition, whereupon the Respondents/Authorities placed on record the Order dated 23.04.2025,

declaring that the Petitioners’ cases were not covered under the Policy, 2021, therefore, their representations were rejected. Thus, the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Secretary, Health and Population Department has been called into question through the Constitutional Petition in hand. The Petitioners have also pressed the plea of discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution by referring to letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Respondent/DHA, Khushab, whereby, various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioners have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(ii)W.P. No.39869 of 2025 (Imrana Abbas, etc. v. Province of the Punjab, etc.)

5.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basisvide their respective Appointment Letters issued in the Year 2017 for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHA, Jhang. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to 29.07.2022, when the Petitioners were relieved. The said order was challenged through a Constitutional Petition, which Constitutional Petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.02.2024 and the orders of declining to confer the status of permanent workmen viz the Petitioners, were set aside; Respondents/ Authorities were directed to decide the cases of the Petitioners in terms of the Policy, 2021, after hearing the Petitioners and all other concerned through a speaking order, within a period of 60 days. The matter was re-considered by the Respondents/Authorities, however, the Petitioners’ request for grant of status of permanent workmen was declined/rejected vide order dated 29.04.2024, which order was once again challenged through W.P. No.38530 of 2024, which petition was also allowed in the terms that the order dated 29.04.2024 was set aside and the Respondents/Authorities were directed to reconsider the case of Petitioners as per the Policy, 2021. It was in these set of facts that the order dated 23.04.2025 has been passed by the Respondents/Authorities, whereby the Petitioners’ request for grant of status of Permanent Workman has been declined for the alleged reasons that the Petitioners were not covered under the Policy, 2021. Hence this

W.P No.6349 of 2026 .. Page 6

Constitutional Petition. The Petitioners have also pressed the plea of discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution by referring to letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Respondent/DHA, Khushab, whereby, various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioners have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(iii)W.P. No.3534 of 2026 (Sajjad Ahmad Jamshaid, etc. v. Govt. of the Punjab, etc.)

(iv)W.P. No.7141 of 2026 (Ali Raza, etc. v. Province of the Punjab, etc.)

(v)W.P. No.9829 of 2026 (Rashid Majeed, etc. v. Province of the Punjab, etc.)

6.The Petitioners in all three Constitutional Petitions were appointed on daily wage basis in the years 2016, 2017 and 2020-21. The precise dates of appointments and the accompanying appointment letters are detailed in the contents of the Constitutional Petitions and are not disputed, therefore, the same are not required to be explicated herein. The Petitioners earlier filed a Constitutional Petition, seeking regularization of their services, which Constitutional Petition was decided vide order dated 10.06.2021, passed in W.P. No.231996 of 2018 on the basis of the statement of the Medical Superintendent, DHQ, Hospital, Toba Tek Singh that since the Petitioners were working to the satisfaction of the Medical Superintendent, therefore, their cases of regularization was undertaken to be forwarded for regularization. Based on such statement made before the Court, the Constitutional Petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the cases of the Petitioners for regularization under the applicable policy. The record further transpires that instead of referring the cases of Petitioners for regularization, the Medical Superintendent concerned referred the matter to CEO, DHA, Toba Tek Singh and also constituted a Committee, which was headed by the same Medical Superintendent. The matter viz. the regularization of the Petitioners was considered, however, the requests were declined. The Petitioners filed the second Constitutional Petition i.e. W.P. No.56804 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2025 by declaring that the cases of the Petitioners were not covered under Punjab

Regularization of Service Act, 2018 and instead, their cases were required to be considered under the Policy, 2021. In furtherance of the order dated 17.06.2025, the request of the Petitioners for invocation of the Policy, 2021 was again declined by Respondent No.3 through the Impugned Order dated 09.01.2026, whereby it is held that since the Petitioners are not skilled workers, therefore, their cases are not covered under the Policy, 2021.

(vi)W.P. No.9164 of 2026 (Muhammad Usman, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

7.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on Daily wage basis vide their respective Appointment Letters issued in the Year 2016-17 for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHA, Hafizabad. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to January, 2026. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 04.02.2026, the Respondents/Authorities verbally inform the Petitioners that from 12.02.2026, their contract will be terminated, whereafter they were relieved from their duties on the basis of verbal orders. The Petitioners filed a representation, which was not decided, consequently, the Petitioners were constrained to file this Constitutional Petition.

(vii)W.P. No.17417 of 2026 (Irfan Ali, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

8.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide their respective Appointment Letters issued in the Year 2019 for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHAs, Vehari, Layyah and Muzaffargarh. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to 24.01.2026. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, whereas it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners worked till 17.09.2025.

(viii)W.P. No.17783 of 2026 (Javed Iqba, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

9.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide their respective Appointment Letters issued in the Year 2017 for

rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHA, Okara. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 87/89 days, however, said appointments were lastly extended on 20.10.2025 for 89 days, whereafter, vide verbal orders, the Petitioners were conveyed on 11.03.2026 that they have been laid off. Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services as Daily Wagers. The Petitioners have also pressed the plea of discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution by referring to letters/orders issued by the Respondent/DHA, whereby, various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioner have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(ix)W.P. No.20027 of 2026 (Shahnawaz Siddique, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

10.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 23.09.2021, for rendering services at THQ Hospital, Kamoke, under the auspices of DHA, Gujranwala and the said appointments were lastly extended on 11.10.2025 for 89 days, however, verbal orders were conveyed on 11.03.2026 directing to lay off the Petitioners. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services as Daily Wagers. The Petitioners have also pressed the plea of discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution as the colleagues of the Petitioners have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(x)W.P. No.21047 of 2026 (Ahmad Shehzad v. Secretary Health and Population, etc.)

11.The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter issued in 2018 for rendering services at THQ, Hospital, Tandlianwala under the auspices of DHA, Faisalabad. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 89 days, which was lastly extended on 26.04.2025 for 89 days. The Respondents/Authorities invited applications for the post of Data Entry Operator at THQ, Hospital, Tandlianwala which constrained the Petitioner to file Constitutional Petition

bearing W.P. No.19311 of 2025, seeking implementation of the Policy, 2021, seeking conferment of the status of Permanent Workman, which petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2025, with the observation that the Petitioner shall approach the concerned officer/respondent through a proper application with all facts which would be considered and decided expeditiously on the plea that the Petitioner was required to be regularized in service under the relevant law. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed an application for regularization of service before the Chief Executive Officer, DHA, Faisalabad, which was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2025. The Petitioner claims that he is still rendering services, however, he has not been paid his salaries/remunerations.

(xi)W.P. No.21597 of 2026 (Muhammad Amir Shahzad v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

12.The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 11.01.2017 for rendering services at THQ, Hospital, Shorkot, under the auspices of DHA, Jhang. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 89 days, however, the appointment was extended from time to time up to 25.08.2025. The Petitioner claims that he continued service till 23.11.2025, when he was relieved by verbal orders. However, it is claimed by the Petitioner that he is still rendering services.

(xii)W.P. No.23043 of 2026 (Mst. Ayesha Batool v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

13.The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 01.06.2019, for rendering services at DHQ, Hospital, Muridke. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 89 days, which was lastly extended on 23.08.2025 for 89 days, whereafter she was relieved from her duties on the basis of verbal orders. The Petitioner filed a representation, which was not decided, consequently, the Petitioner was constrained to file a Constitutional Petition, which Constitutional Petition was disposed of and a direction was issued vide order dated 19.01.2026 passed in W.P. No.3144 of 2026 for decision of the Petitioner’s representation. It was in these circumstances that the impugned

order dated 17.02.2026 has been passed, whereby it has been held that the Petitioner is not entitled to status of permanent workman under the Policy, 2021. The Petitioner claims that she is still rendering services, however, she has not been paid her salaries/remunerations.

(xiii)W.P. No.25833 of 2026 (Bushra Tariq, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

14.The Petitioners No.1 & 2 were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letters dated 21.03.2024 and 27.09.2017, respectively, for rendering services at DHQ Hospital, Okara, under the auspices of DHA, Okara. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to 31.12.2025. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 28.04.2026, the Respondents/Authorities verbally informed the Petitioners that from 04.05.2026, their contract will be terminated. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(xiv)W.P. No.26172 of 2026 (Muhammad Ahmad, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

15.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide their respective Appointment Letters issued in the Years 2017, 2021 and 2022 for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHA, Faisalabad. The Petitioners filed Constitutional Petitions bearing W.P. Nos.21496 of 2019 and 19052 of 2019, seeking implementation of the Policy, 2021 for attaining/conferring of the status of permanent workmen, which petitions were disposed of vide orders dated 22.09.2021, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners under the Policy, 2021. In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court, the Respondents/Authorities have issued the order dated 26.02.2026 whereby the implementation of the Policy, 2021 viz. the Petitioners has been declined. The Petitioners have unequivocally stated that initially the Petitioners were pressing for the regularization, however, they only seek the benefits arising out of the Policy, 2021.

(xv)W.P. No.33317 of 2026 (Maratab Ali. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

16.The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 21.01.2017 for rendering services under the auspices of DHA, Chiniot. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 89 days, however, the appointment was extended from time to time up to 30.03.2026, however, verbal orders were conveyed directing to lay off the Petitioner but the Petitioner is still rendering the services as Daily Wager. The Petitioner has also pressed the plea of discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution by referring to letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Respondent/DHA, Khushab, whereby, various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioner have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The Petitioner claims that he is still rendering services, however, he has not been paid his salaries/remunerations.

(xvi)W.P. No.34825 of 2026 (Amana Afzal, DEO, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

17.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide their respective Appointment Letters issued in the Year 2017 for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHA, Kasur. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to 04.08.2024. The Petitioners claim that they continued serving till June, 2026, when they were relieved by verbal orders.

(xvii)W.P. No.39884 of 2026 (Ayesha, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

18.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators as Daily wage basis vide Appointment Letters issued in 2018-2019, for rendering services at various health establishments, under the auspices of DHA, Faisalabad. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to October, 2025. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have suddenly been stopped from working through verbal orders, however, on the basis of the interim relief granted by this Court, they are still rendering the services. On the contrary, it

is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners have rendered services till October, 2025 and they have been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(xviii)W.P. No.49429 of 2026 (Kashif Iqbal, etc. v. Province of Punjab, etc.)

19.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 31.08.2022 for rendering services at DHQ, Hospital, Khushab under the auspices of DHA, Khushab. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, which were lastly extended on 19.09.2024 for 89 days and it was on 17.06.2025, when an Office Order was issued by the Respondents/Authorities notifying that the services of all Data Entry Operators working on Daily Wages would stand terminated after 30.06.2025. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed a Constitutional Petition bearing W.P. No.38143 of 2025 before this Court, which petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.06.2025 with the direction to the Respondents/Authorities to treat the same as representation and decide it through speaking order. In furtherance of the said direction, Respondents/Authorities rejected the claim of the Petitioners and discontinued their services as Data Entry Operators vide order dated 01.09.2026. Hence this Constitutional Petition. The Petitioners have agitated the ground of discrimination while referring to letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Respondents/Department, whereby, various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioners have been granted the status of permanent workmen.

(xix)W.P. No.52136 of 2025 (Muhammad Ghazanfar Naseem v. Govt. of the Punjab, etc.)

20.The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 07.02.2017 for rendering services at Govt. General Hospital Samanabad, Faisalabad, under the auspices of DHA, Faisalabad. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 89 days. At this juncture, the Petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition bearing W.P. No.30233 of 2022 before this Court seeking a direction for the Respondents/Authorities, to regularize his service from the date of initial appointment, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2022 with the

direction to the Respondents/Authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization as contingent/daily wages staff. In furtherance of the said direction, the Petitioner was again appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage vide appointment letter dated 18.03.2023. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 80 days, however, said appointment was extended on 15.04.2025 for 81 days. It is the case of the Petitioner that no written orders were passed after 15.04.2025, however, the Petitioner is still rendering the services as Daily Wager. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not press this Constitutional Petition to the extent of regularization of the Petitioner rather contends that the Petitioner may be appointed as permanent workman as he fulfilled the criteria of being considered and appointed as “Permanent Workman”. The Petitioner has also pressed the plea of discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution by referring to letter dated 27.04.2023 issued by Medical Superintendent, DHQ, Hospital, Faisalabad, whereby, various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioner have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The Petitioner claims that he is still rendering services, however, he has not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(xx)W.P. No.52311 of 2026 (Yasir Ayub v. Province of Punjab, etc.)

21.The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 05.10.2022 for rendering services at DHQ, Hospital, Khushab under the auspices of DHA, Khushab. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 89 days, which was lastly extended on 29.01.2025 for 89 days and it was on 17.06.2025, when an Office Order was issued by the Respondents/Authorities notifying that the services of all Data Entry Operators working on Daily Wages would stand terminated after 30.06.2025. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition bearing W.P. No.49569 of 2025 before this Court, which petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2025 with the direction to the Respondents/Authorities to examine the case of the Petitioner in the light of the Policy, 2021. In compliance of the said direction, Respondents/Authorities rejected the claim of the Petitioner and discontinued his services as Data Entry Operator vide order dated

02.09.2026, hence this Constitutional Petition. The Petitioner has agitated the ground of discrimination while referring to letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Respondents/Department, whereby, various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioner have been granted the status of permanent workmen.

(xxi)W.P. No.53628 of 2026 (Muhammad Saleem, etc. v. Province of Punjab, etc.)

22.The Petitioners were appointed as Daily wage basis vide their respective Appointment Letters for rendering services at various health facilities under the auspices of DHA, Pakpattan. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, these appointments were extended from time to time up to 18.04.2025. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(xxii)W.P. No.57408 of 2026 (Tasawar Abbas, etc. v. Govt. of the Punjab, etc.)

23.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on Work Charged basis vide Appointment Letter dated 17.09.2016 for rendering services at DHQ, Hospital, Chiniot under the auspices of DHA, Chiniot. The appointment so made were initially for the period of six months, which were lastly extended upto 20.06.2026 for 89 days. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the Petitioners worked till 30.06.2026 and they have already paid salaries till that period.

(xxiii)W.P. No.58486 of 2026 (Bilal Faisal and another v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

24.The Petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letters dated 14.06.2022 and 07.06.2017, respectively, for rendering services at THQ Hospital, Wazirabad under the auspices of DHA, Gujranwala. The appointments so made were initially for the period of 89 days, however, said appointments were extended from time to time and were lastly extended on 01.09.2025 and 19.07.2025 for 89 days.

It is the case of the Petitioners that no written orders were passed, however, verbal orders were conveyed directing to lay off the Petitioners but the Petitioners are still rendering the services as Daily Wagers. The Petitioners have also pressed the plea of discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution as various similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioners have been granted the status of permanent workmen. The Petitioners claim that they are still rendering services, however, they have not been paid their salaries/remunerations.

(xxiv)W.P. No.64024 of 2026 (Muhammad Talha v. Government of the Punjab, etc.)

25.The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis vide Appointment Letter dated 27.11.2021 for rendering services at THQ, Hospital, Kamoke under the auspices of DHA, Gujranwala. The appointment so made was initially for the period of 89 days, which was lastly extended on 14.07.2025 for further 89 days. It is the case of the Petitioner that no written orders were passed after 19.12.2025, however, verbal orders were conveyed directing to lay off the Petitioner but the Petitioner is still rendering the services as Daily Wager.

(xxiv)W.P. No.39876 of 2025 (Muhammad Usman v. Province of the Punjab, etc.)

26.The Petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant/Attendant on contingent-paid/daily-wage basis vide appointment order dated 28.01.2017 for rendering services at DHQ Hospital, Jhang, under the auspices of DHA, Jhang. The appointment so made was initially for a period of six months, however, the same was extended from time to time without any gap, except for an artificial break of one day. It is the case of the Petitioner that despite rendering continuous services against a post of permanent nature, the Respondents/Authorities failed to regularize his services, constraining him to file W.P. No. 26664 of 2020 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.10.2021 with a direction to decide his representation regarding regularization. The representation was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2022 and the Petitioner was relieved from service on 16.08.2022. Being aggrieved, he filed W.P. No. 59800 of 2022, which was allowed on

13.02.2024, directing reconsideration of his case under the Policy, 2021. His representation was again rejected on 29.04.2024, whereafter he filed W.P. No. 38557 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2024, setting aside the rejection order and directing fresh consideration under the Policy, 2021. The representation was once again rejected vide impugned order dated 23.04.2025. The Petitioner claims entitlement to the status of permanent workman with all consequential benefits from the date of his initial appointment.

27.Report/Para-wise comments have been filed by the Respondents/DHAs as well as by other Respondents including the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of the Punjab and the Administrative Department i.e. Health & Population Department. It is the case of the Finance Department, Govt. of the Punjab that the Petitioners who were appointed on Work Charged basis are employees of Health and Population Department and the matter pertaining to the invocation of the Policy, 2021 falls within the domain of Administrative Department. It is stated through the comments filed by the Finance Department, Govt. of the Punjab that the cases of Work Charged employees and Contingent Paid Staff, who were appointed before the issuance of the Policy, 2021 and have completed nine months before the issuance of the said Policy, are eligible for appointment as Permanent Workmen. On the contrary, it is the position of the Administrative Department that the Petitioners are not employees working directly under the administrative machinery of the Health and Population Department and instead they are employees of autonomous bodies i.e. DHAs. Likewise, it is the case of the DHAs that since the DHAs are autonomous bodies and these Petitioners/Daily Wagers were appointed from time to time by the respective DHAs, therefore, the Policy, 2021 is not attracted in these cases. In some of the cases, it has been agitated by the Respondents/DHAs that the Petitioners are not skilled workers, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of status of Permanent Workmen. The reliance has been placed upon various letters and documents, whereby it has been pleaded that there are budgetary constraints, as the budget for dispensing the salaries of these contingent paid/Daily Wage employees is not funded by the

Finance Department, Government of the Punjab and the autonomous bodies, i.e. DHAs have been directed to manage their own budgets viz. the subject matter Daily Wagers.

28.In order to clarify the precise position of the Government of the Punjab and Administrative Department, this Court passed the order dated 16.10.2026, directing the Secretary, S&GAD (Regulations), Government of the Punjab to appear in person and make a statement as to the applicability of the Policy, 2021. The said Secretary accordingly appeared on 23.10.2026 and stated that the Policy, 2021 is applicable to the Administrative Departments of the Govt. of the Punjab and is thus required to be implemented. He further placed on record certain letters and documents indicating that the directions/guidelines have already been issued by the S&GAD to the Administrative Departments for adherence to the Policy, 2021. He further stated that since DHAs are autonomous bodies and are not covered under the overall administrative and financial control of the Govt. of the Punjab, therefore, each of such autonomous bodies are either required to specifically adopt the Policy, 2021 or to render an explanation as to what legal dispensation is available for regulating the matters relating to the services of Contingent Paid Staff and Daily Wage employees. As a consequence of the statement so made, this Court directed the concerned Chief Executive Officers of DHAs to either convey their written instructions to the learned Law Officer of this Court or to appear in person on the next date (today) to explain their respective positions. The instructions were accordingly conveyed and it is reiterated by the Respondents/DHAs that the Policy, 2021 is not attracted in the cases in hand as the Policy, 2021 is not applicable viz. the autonomous bodies i.e. DHAs.

29.Arguments heard. Record perused.

30.Based on the above facts and submissions, the first question which requires determination at the outset is that whether the Policy, 2021 is applicable and liable to be implemented by the DHAs, as all the Petitioners in the above-mentioned cases were hired by the respective DHAs or Health

W.P No.6349 of 2026 .. Page 18

Councils.1 There is no substance in the submission that the Policy, 2021 is not applicable viz. the Daily Wagers/Contingent Paid Staff of the DHAs, being autonomous bodies. The reliance is placed upon Clause (c)2 of Rule 10 of the Punjab District Health Authorities (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2016 notified vide Notification No.SOR(LG)38-5/14 dated 05.10.2016. Rule 10 (c) of the said Rules provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall: “implement standards and policies fixed by the Government”. Considering the foregoing, no plausible explanation is available for non- implementation and non-application of Policy, 2021, which has been issued by the S&GAD, Govt. of the Punjab. Thus, it is held that the Policy, 2021 is applicable for the purposes of the Contingent Paid Staff and Daily Wage employees of the DHAs.

31.The next question which requires determination in this case is that whether the Petitioners are entitled for their appointments as permanent workmen under the Policy, 2021, and if so, whether under the terms of the said Policy, the Respondents/DHAs are required to issue formal notifications/letters, conferring such status upon the Petitioners and whether in absence of such notifications/letters, the Petitioners have attained the status of permanent workmen by operation of law or otherwise?

32.Before adverting to answer the above questions, it is imperative to discuss the background which necessitated the issuance of the Policy, 2021 by the S&GAD. It is a matter of record that various Civil Petitions filed by the Province of Punjab, including Civil Petition Nos.3340 to 3344 of 2010 titled Province of Punjab and Secretary Communication & Works Department v. Zaka Ullah and others etc.”, were pending determination before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whereby, the Province and its Administrative Departments had laid a challenge to various Judgments and Orders pertaining to the Work Charged Employees, who were directed to be regularized by the respective Labour Courts and the said decisions were also upheld by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as by the Lahore High Court; it was argued by the Province that unlike the facts of the earlier Health Councils are not any autonomous bodies and were rather crated for overall superintendence of the matters realting to DHAs.

Inadvertently numbered as Clause-a

W.P No.6349 of 2026 .. Page 19

reported case i.e Ahmad Hussain’s case3 supra, where the subject matters employees had rendered services for more than 12 years, the Respondents/employees of the matter pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zaka Ullah etc. case, had only worked for a few years; it was further argued before the Supreme Court of Pakistan that some of the employees are occupying the positions which required higher qualifications, therefore, without verification and determination of eligibility, the employees in question cannot be regularized or granted the status of permanent workmen. During the course of proceedings in the said case, an opportunity was provided to the Government of Punjab to chalk out a policy which may deal with the cases of Daily Wagers/Contingent Paid Staff, as no such policy was available and there was an absolute vacuum viz regulating the service matters of such Daily Wagers/Contingent Paid Staff. On 22.01.2019,4 the learned Additional Advocate General Punjab informed the Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that: the Provincial Government has constituted a Committee to frame the policy regarding regularization of Work Charged employees. Thus, an adjournment was sought, which was granted for laying the outcome of the deliberations of the Committee before the Supreme Court. The request was allowed; the case was relisted after one month i.e. on 22.11.2019, when on the basis of the statement of learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, the pending matters were disposed of and consequently the appointment orders of subject matter employees were issued by the concerned department vide Office Order No.1 dated 04.01.2021. It was in this backdrop that the Policy, 2021 was issued, which is required to be implemented in letter and spirit as the Policy acknowledges the rights of Daily Wagers/Work Charged Employees working in various Government Departments within the scope of the Standing Orders, 1968.

33.The Policy, 2021 provides guidelines as to the status of Daily Wagers or Work Charged employees working in Government Departments by extending them the rights and entitlements of Permanent Workmen under Province of Punjab v. Ahmad Hassan (2013 SCMR 1547)

During the course of pending proceedings in C.P No.3340 to 3344 of 2018 in the cases titled Province of Punjab v. Zaka Ullah and others.

Standing Orders, 1968, as there is no other statutory protection available to such Daily Wagers/employees. The Policy, 2021, which has been framed under the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and embodies the principles applied by the Superior Courts concerning the rights of Daily Wagers in Government Departments, also clarifies by way of distinguishing the regularization of Daily Wagers as Permanent Workmen from that of Civil Servants or the employees governed by statutory rules of service. Paragraph 4 of the Policy, 2021 essentially expresses the decision of the Government, to be followed by all the departments, to reconsider such cases and pass orders strictly in accordance with the Policy, 2021. The adherence to Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the Policy, 2021 neither overrides any law nor attempts to nullify any statutory scheme. The said policy decision is for all the departments and is required to be followed across the board, these cases of Petitioners squarely fall within the purview of the Policy, 2021. The fact that the Petitioners have attained the status of Permanent Workmen entitles them for the rights and protections available in the Standing Orders, 1968, therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Petitioners are “Permanent Workmen’, as the Daily Wage or Work Charged employees do attain the status of Permanent Workmen under Clause 1(b) of the Schedule to Standing Orders, 1968. For ready reference the aforesaid provision is reproduced hereunder:-

“(b) A “permanent workman” is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock-out, strike (not being an illegal lock-out or strike) or involuntary closure of the establishment and includes a badli who has been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty three days during any period of twelve consecutive months.”

Considering the above, the right or entitlement of Daily Wagers working in Government Departments or autonomous bodies such as DHAs to become Permanent Workmen under Standing Orders, 1968 as distinct from Civil Servants has been recognized and enforced by the Superior Courts while holding that no other law or rules are applicable for governing the

employment of Daily Wagers/Work Charged employees. The said pronouncements were made through various judgments reported as ‘Punjab Seed Corporation v Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal’ (1996 SCMR 1947); ‘Executive Engineer, PAK P.W.D v Abdul Aziz’ (PLD 1996 SC 610); ‘Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Punjab v Muhammad Akhtar’ (2009 SCMR 320); and ‘Province of Punjab v Ahmad Hussain’ (2013 SCMR 1547). In Ahmad Hussain Case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, while following the earlier Judgments, held that where a Daily Wager/Work Charged employee had been working continuously for more than 9 months and his job is of permanent nature, he/she shall be considered as Permanent Workman and his/her services shall be governed by Standing Orders, 1968. Therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the service/employment of the Petitioners being Permanent Workmen was to be governed by the Standing Orders, 1968. This Court, while deciding Writ petition No.10596/2017 filed by a Daily Wager/Baildar of Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, in its judgment reported as ‘Yasir Imran Butt vs. Chief Officer (MCS) etc. (2021 PLC 139 (L), discussed the effect of Standing Order No. 1(b) of the Schedule to the Standing Orders, 1968 and held that the services of the petitioner are deemed to be regularized in view of the provision of Standing Orders, 1968. The reliance may also be placed upon the case of “Syed Safeer Abbas Kazmi and 128 others v. Chief Executive Officer, District Health Authority, Multan and 6 others” (2025 LHC 5256), whereby while deciding the grievance raised by the petitioners of the said case, who were appointed as Sanitary Patrols on Work Charged/Contingent Paid basis during 2015-2016, learned Single Judge-in- Chambers of this Court held that said petitioners were entitled to the claimed benefit under the Policy, 2021 for the reason that they had continuously performed duties relating to the prevention and control of epidemics, particularly dengue, from 2015 to 2024; their services had been extended from time to time, demonstrating the continuing requirement of their work; thus, it was held that Paragraph No.4 of the Policy, 2021 expressly provided that employees who had completed nine months or more could be considered for the status and benefits of permanent workmen. The Court further observed that similarly placed Daily Wagers had already been

regularized through various orders, whereas the respondents had failed to establish any reasonable distinction between those employees and the petitioners, thereby attracting the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. It was accordingly held that the respondents could not deny the petitioners therein the benefit of the Policy, 2021 nor they can be discriminated against without any lawful classification. Consequently, the Constitutional Petitions were allowed vide Judgment dated 07.08.2025, which Judgment was further assailed through ICA No.168 of 2025 titled “Chief Executive Officer, District Health Authority, Multan v. Syed Safeer Abbas Kazmi and others” (2026 PLC (Labour) 196), however, the said appeal too has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 11.09.2025.

34.In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Petitioners in this and all other connected Constitutional Petitions have served for more than nine months while performing the duties and jobs assigned to them, which assignments are of permanent nature as the respondent DHAs have continuously been issuing advertisements for appointing Daily Wagers, therefore, the Petitioners squarely fall within the ambit and category of Daily Wagers/Contingent Paid Staff/Work Charged staff. Likewise, it has not been disputed that the Petitioners are/were engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and, as of now, are required to render services for the smooth functioning of the concerned departments/ establishments, therefore, there is no lawful justification resting with Respondents to deny the lawful rights accrued in favour of the Petitioners by virtue of the Policy, 2021. The perusal of the contents of the Policy, 2021, clearly demonstrates that the provisions contained therein are self-executory in nature and due to absence/denial of the subjective assessment by the Respondents/Authorities qua the services rendered by the Petitioners; the Petitioners have attained the status of Permanent Workmen under the Policy,

35.Coming to the objection raised by the Respondents that since most of the Petitioners in this and connected Constitutional Petitions have already been laid off by virtue of non-extension of their appointments, therefore,

they are no longer employees of the concerned DHAs and consequently, as contended, the Policy, 2021 is not attracted in their cases. This position and the grounds so raised by the Respondents are devoid of any lawful basis. Reliance may be placed upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Town Administration and another v. Mohammad Khalid and others” (2024 SCMR 1852). In the said case, the grievance of the employees, who were Daily Wagers/Contingent Paid Staff, was that despite having served the department continuously for several years against posts involving work of a permanent nature, their services were terminated orally without assigning any reason or following the prescribed procedure. The principal questions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan were that whether employees engaged on a temporary or daily-wage basis could acquire the status of permanent workmen by virtue of their continuous services and the permanent nature of their duties and whether their services could be terminated through verbal orders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the nature of work, rather than merely the mode or duration of appointment, is the determining factor for deciding the status of a workman and held that where an employee is engaged against a post of permanent nature and continues to perform such duties beyond the prescribed period of nine months, he acquires the status of a permanent workman under the Standing Orders, 1968. While dealing with the question of verbal termination, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Judgment that Standing Order No.2-A of the Standing Orders, 1968 requires every workman to be provided, at the time of appointment, transfer or promotion, with an order in writing specifying the terms and conditions of service, whereas Standing Order No. 12 requires that termination, removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal of a workman must also be through a written order explicitly stating the reasons for such action. Relying upon Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute, Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Government of Pakistan v. Zulqarnain Ali (2022 SCMR 636), the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that verbal termination of service is alien to labour and service laws and is also contrary to the principles of natural justice, good governance, fairness and transparency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan further emphasized

W.P No.6349 of 2026 .. Page 24

that before taking any adverse action against an employee or workman, a fair opportunity to respond and defend himself must be afforded, irrespective of whether the action is administrative or quasi-judicial. The claim of the employees was accepted on the grounds that they had continuously served for several years against posts of permanent nature, their duties were not connected with any temporary project or assignment and the employer had failed to establish that the work for which they were engaged was essentially temporary or likely to be completed within nine months. The Supreme Court also held that repeatedly engaging employees on short-term or daily-wage arrangements could not be used as a device to circumvent the protection available under labour laws. The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Muhammad Khalid and others” supra are squarely applicable to the case in hand.

36.Through instant and connected Constitutional Petitions, overwhelming record and documents have been appended, as adumbrated in the factual part of this Judgment, which remained un-rebutted, viz. the claim that the similarly placed colleagues of the Petitioners have already been granted the status of permanent workmen by written orders but as regards to the Petitioners, a pick and choose policy has been adopted, which is not tenable under the law, as the same is prohibited by virtue of the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the Petitioners in terms of the Article 25 of the Constitution. It is trite that reasonable classification is permissible and Article 25 of the Constitution is only attracted in an apple to apple comparison5. Similarly, it is also well settled that although Article 25 of the Constitution envisages equality amongst citizens, it also allows for differential treatment of persons who are not similarly placed by virtue of a reasonable classification. However, to justify this difference in treatment, the reasonable classification needs to be 'based on intelligible differentia, which has a rational nexus with the object being sought to be achieved6. Likewise, it is vouched by the respectable authority that the persons may be classified Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others v. Ch. Abdul Sattar Hans and 29 others (2015 SCMR 915), National Commission on Status of Women through Chairperson and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice and others (PLD 2019 SC 218) Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2022 SCMR 1691)

W.P No.6349 of 2026 .. Page 25

in groups and such groups may be treated differently, if there is a reasonable classification7. In the instant case, the Respondents/DHAs have failed to place on record an iota of material or evidence, which may distinguish the cases of the Petitioners viz. the Daily Wagers/Contingent Paid Staff/Work Charged employees, who were hired and retained under the same policy and dispensation and have been declared permanent workmen but the Petitioners rights for conferring the status of permanent workmen have been denied with impunity.

37.So far as the question of non-payment of remuneration/salaries is concerned, as evident, this question is rooted in the subjective determination of facts and will depend upon the determination as to the factum of rendering of services by the Petitioners, if any, which exercise cannot be undertaken while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, as this Court cannot ascertain that which of the Petitioners/Workers have rendered services, attracting payment of remuneration or vice versa, therefore, this aspect will be decided by the respective Authorities/DHAs and in case it is established that the Petitioners have rendered services during the interregnum period i.e. from the date of last extension of their service contracts till date, the Petitioners shall be paid their outstanding remuneration/salaries. Conversely, if it is concluded on the basis of evidence that no services have been rendered during the period in question, the Respondents/Authorities may proceed to decide the matter on the settled principle of law i.e. “no work, no pay”. Needless to observe that the Petitioners shall be afforded a meaningful opportunity of hearing, to establish their claim of outstanding remuneration/salaries, if any, against the services, if so rendered.

38.The upshot of above discussion is that the instant and the connected Constitutional Petitions are allowed in the following terms:

(i)The Impugned Order(s), denying the status of permanent workman/workmen to the Petitioner(s) is/are set aside;

(ii)The provisions contained in the Policy, 2021 are attracted to the cases of the Petitioner(s) and as a natural corollary, it is Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Communications, Islamabad and another v. Shuja Sharif and others (2023 SCMR 129)

swhereby declared that the Petitioner(s) is/are and was/were always entitled for the benefits and lawful consequences arising out of the Policy, 2021;

(iii)By virtue of the Policy, 2021, the status of permanent workman/workmen has come to vest in favour of the Petitioner(s) by operation of law, irrespective of issuance of formal notification(s)/order(s) in this respect, which status will enure to them with all benefits and obligations arising out of the applicable law i.e. Standing Orders, 1968;

(iv)The question of disbursement of outstanding remuneration/salaries of the Petitioner(s) shall be decided through separate order(s) by the Respondents/Authorities after affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner(s) on the basis of the available record.

(Khalid Ishaq) Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

(Khalid Ishaq) Judge Mohsin Raza!