Said Ullah Vs Federal Government and others

,T

(Judicial Department)

W.P.No.24-Bl2017.

Said Ullah

Versus

Federal Government and others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 29.5.2025.

For petitioner: Mr. Shahid Saleem Mina Khel, Advocate.

For respondents: Mr. Taj Muhammad Khan, Asstt: Attorney General.

MUHAMMAD TARIC AflRIDI, l.- Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks the /n following relief:

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that on acceptance of instant writ petition, the respondents may very graciously be directed to issue orders of regularization of petitioner with effect from 01.7.2013 with all back benefits in pursuance of the decision ofthe Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 27.02.2013 followed by Notification dated 12.11.2013 and petitioner may be fteated alike/equally alongwith their batch mates i.e. Markaz Coordinator. It is further prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to give equal benefits to the petitioner as per judgment of Islamabad High Court dated 16.12.2025 in writ petition No.72412015. Any other relief which deems fit and proper according to the circumstances of the case may also be granted.

2.The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Marlraz Coordinator (MC) on a conffact basis vide offer letter dated 01.02.2010 by the National Commission for

Human Development (NCHD), and has since been working in the office of respondent No.5. A meeting of the cabinet Sub-Committee on the regularization of contracVdaily wage employees of various ministries/divisions/attached departments was held on 31.05.2012 under the chairmanship of Syed Khurshid Ahmad Shah, the then Federal Minister for Religious Affairs, in the Establishment Division, Islamabad. In that meeting, it was decided that services of contract/daily wage employees who had completed more than one year of service would not be terminated without ptacing their cases before the cabinet Sub-committee. It was further resolved that their contracts be extended until the finat decision of the Committee. Subsequently, in a meeting held on 27.02.2013, the Cabinet Sub-Committee decided that all contract/daily wage employees who had either completed one year of service or had served three spetls of 89 days up to 15.03.2013 would be considered for rcgulaization. As a result, the Committee approved the regularization of 3088 such employees by transferring their posts to the non-development budget. In pursuance of the said decision, the Finance Division, on 21.08.2013, approved the creation of 2943 posts in the NCHD.

Consequently, the services of 2943 contract/daily wage employees across different Basic Pay Scales (BPS) throughout the country were regulariz.ed, including 1727 Markaz Coordinators in BPS-9, batchmates and colleagues

J

of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was excluded from this process without any justifiable reason. The petitioner alleges that despite submitting multiple representations and applications seeking regularization in line with the Cabinet Sub-Committee's decision, no positive resPonse was received from the competent authority. Feeling aggrieved, and having no other adequate or efficacious remedy, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for redress ofhis grievance'

3.Arguments of leamed counsel for the parties have been heard, and the record has been examined with their valuable assistance.

4.From the record, it hanspires that the petitioner, along with 144 other employees, was not considered for regularization during the 2013 tegalatization process of NCHD employees, which was carried out pursuant to the recommendations of the Finance Division. The regularization exercise was limited to employees whose posts had been approved by the Finance Division and who were serving against sanctioned positions. The petitioner, however, was not among those whose cases were approved for regularization.

5.It is a well-settled principle of law that a contractual employee cannot claim regularization of service as a matter of righl nor can such employee invoke the constitutional

jurisdiction of this Court under Articte 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to seek enforcement of contractual terms unless there is violation of any statutory rules or principles of natural justice. No such violation has been shown in the present case. The employment of the petitioner remained purely conffactual/contingent and was never regUlarized under any law or policy decision. Furthermore, as per the U'O' Note No.1(16)/2011-PT-l dated 30.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of Federal Education & Professional Training, it was observed during a review of the record that 62 employees, including the petitioner, were appointed on a contingent basis beyond the sanctioned sffength and without the concurrence of the Finance Division. In view of these findings, it was decided that services of such employees shall be terminated forthwith. The petitioner's name appears in the list of contingent staff appended with memo dated 22.09.2021. Subsequently, vide Office Memorandum dated 23.05.2022, the Secretary/Principal Accounting Officer (PAO), Ministry of Federal Education & Professional Training, abolished the vacant/contingent-paid staff positions across various departments under its administrative control, further weakening the petitioner's claim to any relief.

6.Additionally, the instant writ petition was filed in January, 2017, several years after the cause of action had

A

accrued in 2013, when the regularization process was undertaken. The doctrine of laches squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

7.In light of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner was never appointed against a sanctioned post nor was his service regularized in pursuance of the cabinet sub- Committee's decisions or Finance Division's recommendations. Being a contractuaUcontingent employee and having approached the Court with considerable delay, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.

8.Resultantly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

tlL Announced.

Dt:29.5.2025.

Imran/*

TADGE

(D,B)

Hon'ble Mn Justice MuhannadTariq Afridi ffin,uEo Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

I ,}