Abdur Rehman Khan Vs Govt of KP

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

WP No. 809-P/2024 with IR.

Abdur Rehman Khan.................(Petitioner) V/s

Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar & others...................................(Respondents) For the Petitioner: Mr. Zartaj Anwar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Niaz Muhammad Khan,

AAG.

Date of hearing: 28.01.2026

JUDGMENT

KAMRAN HAYAT MIANKHEL, J: - Through the instant petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner (Abdur Rehman Khan) has prayed this Court for the following relief: -

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition, an appropriate writ may please be issued, while directing the respondents to issue formal order for retention of lien to the petitioner, the petitioner has every right to retain the post i.e. at Zakat, Ushr, Social Welfare, Special Education & Women Empowerment Department KPK, lien in Govt: Service is right of a Civil Servant to return to his original position. The reluctance on the part of the respondents by not issuing the formal order of retention is to be declared illegal, unlawful, violative upon the rights of the petitioner.”

2.The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 31.03.2017 as Psychologist (BPS-17) at Rehabilitation Center for Drug Addicts, Karak, under an ADP project titled “Establishment of Rehabilitation Centers”. His appointment, along with others, was admittedly project based and governed by the terms and conditions of the scheme.

Subsequently, upon conversion of the project into the regular budget, the services of the petitioner and similarly placed employees were terminated in accordance with the project policy. This action was challenged before this Court through Writ Petition No.3210-P/2018, which was allowed vide judgment dated 31.01.2019. The respondent-department assailed the same before the apex court which was dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2019. However, the said judgment was later reviewed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Review Petition No.743 of 2019, wherein the earlier order was recalled to the extent that the employees were directed to be considered for appointment through the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission (KPPSC). It was further observed that till completion of the recruitment process, the employees would continue to work and receive salaries, but their status remained contractual and non-confirmed.

During this interregnum period, the petitioner applied, through proper channel after obtaining No Objection Certificate

(NOC) from his department, for the post of Professional Social Worker (BPS-17) advertised by the Federal Public Service Commission. He was selected and joined the said post.

Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent department to retain lien against his original post of Psychologist (BPS-17), which request was declined on the ground that the petitioner never acquired a substantive or confirmed status in the parent department and therefore, was not entitled to lien under the relevant rules. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.The respondents were summoned and directed to file their para-wise comments, which they have furnished wherein assertions of the petitioner were denied on several legal and factual grounds.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s project was converted into a regular scheme and reflected in the budget book. He was allowed to continue in service pursuant to court orders and he applied for the new post through proper channel after obtaining NOC. The lien is a statutory right of a civil servant and refusal to grant lien is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of settled principles of service law. He placed reliance on 2024 SCMR 614 and other judgments defining lien as a right to return to the original post.

5.As against this, learned AAG contended that the petitioner was a project employee, whose services were only conditionally reinstated. He argued that the petitioner was never

regularized nor confirmed in service. He argued that the judgment of supreme court dated 03.04.2020 clearly required fresh recruitment through KPPSC. The lien accrues only upon substantive appointment and confirmation. Since the petitioner joined another department on regular basis through competitive selection, no lien could be retained. He placed reliance on 2011 SCMR 442, 1996 SCMR 284, and other binding precedents.

6.Arguments heard and record gone through.

7.The concept of lien is governed by the Fundamental Rules and the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1993.

 FR 9(13) defines lien as the title of a government servant to hold substantively a permanent post.

 FR 12-A provides that a government servant acquires lien only upon substantive appointment to a permanent post.

 Rule 5 of the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1993 explicitly states that lien is acquired only on confirmation.

 Rule 6(2) provides that lien ceases when a civil servant takes up appointment on selection in another organization.

The entire controversy hinges upon a single pivotal question Whether the petitioner ever acquired a substantive and confirmed status in the parent department so as to claim lien?

The answer, based on record and settled law, is clearly in the negative.

8.It is undisputed that the petitioner was initially appointed on a project based post. Even after the litigation culminating

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner’s continuation in service was purely conditional, subject to fresh recruitment through KPPSC. The Supreme Court categorically held that the petitioners were not regularized, nor deemed to be permanent civil servants, and were only allowed to continue temporarily till the recruitment process was completed. Thus, the petitioner never crossed the threshold of substantive appointment or confirmation, which is the foundational requirement for acquiring lien. The Supreme Court in the case of “Engineer Hafeezullah v. PTCL” (2011 SCMR 442) authoritatively held that:

“Lien means the title of a civil servant to hold substantively a post on which he has been confirmed.”

9.Similarly, in “Muhammad Saleem v. Government of Balochistan” (2024 SCMR 614), while defining lien as a statutory right, the Supreme Court reiterated that such right is available only to regular civil servants holding substantive appointments. The petitioner’s reliance on NOC and application through proper channel is inappropriate. An NOC merely permits participation in a selection process; it does not elevate the status of an employee nor does it create a lien where none exists in law. Furthermore, once the petitioner voluntarily accepted a regular appointment through a competitive process in another department, even otherwise, the right of lien, if any,

stood extinguished in light of Rule 6(2) of the 1993 Rules.

Courts have consistently held that project and contract employees do not acquire lien, as their employment is synchronized with the project and lacks permanency. Reference may be made to Raja Shehryar v. PCSIR (2013 PLC (CS)

10.In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner was never a confirmed civil servant and he never acquired a substantive right over the post of Psychologist (BPS- 17). The lien, being a statutory right, cannot be claimed in absence of confirmation; the impugned refusal by the respondents is strictly in accordance with law and rules.

11.Resultantly, this writ petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. The interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

Announced

JUDGE

JUDGE

Nadir SSS

(DB

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Naeem Anwar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel