Abid Alam Vs Govt of Pakistan etc

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

Writ Petition No.564-P of 2019 Abid Alam Vs. Govt. of Pakistan & others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 13.11.2019

Petitioner by: Mr. Javed Iqbal Gulbeal, Advocate, for petitioner.

Respondents by: Mr. Hassan UK Afridi, Advocate along with Muhammad Mubarik, AD (Legal), NADRA.

Ahmad Ali, J.- Petitioner through this constitutional petition is seeking the following relief:

It is, therefore most humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant Writ Petition the service of the petitioner be declared on regular (BPS System) for all intents and purposes and the contractual nature of service be converted into regular system (BPS mechanism).

Any other relief not specifically

asked for may also graciously be

extended in favour of the petitioner.

2.A brief account of the facts of present writ petition are that the petitioner was inducted into the service of National Database & Registration Authority on 04.01.2010 as Data Entry Operator after fulfilment of the codal formalities i.e. test & interview etc. Initially he was posted at Peshawar Headquarter Peshawar vide letter No.

NADRA/PHQ/App-02/HR February 2010 on daily wages basis. After that, the petitioner was inducted into service on contract basis w.e.f. 02.03.2011 vide letter No.NADRA/HR/Offer/P/Phr dated 21.03.2011 subject to confirmation of contract after probation period of six months. Meanwhile, NADRA circulated a policy for the regularization of employees hired on or before 28.02.2011 providing them two options i.e. EPS (Option-

I)and BPS (Option-II). The petitioner applied for regularization in BPS System by submitting his option form. After that the petitioner in the year 2014 approached the HR Office and inquired about the status of his NADRA employment option form. The HR Department refused the regularization of petitioner on the score that only those employees, who signed contractual

letter before 01.03.2011 can be regularized under the basic pay scale (BPS) system. The petitioner then came to know that fifteen persons, junior to him, were regularized from contractual basis to BPS, and all these fifteen persons has got their contractual letters after the petitioner’s date of joining contractual service. Thus, the petitioner for the purpose of his regularization in the BPS System has filed present petition with the supra quoted relief.

3.Respondents submitted comments wherein they contended that the NADRA has no statutory rules and thus the writ petition is not maintainable. Besides, it was their stance that only those employees who completed one-year contract service before 29.02.2012 were entitled to regularization and this was one-time activity. The employment status of petitioner was changed to contractual service on 02.03.2011 which completed one year on 02.03.2012, therefore, on the cut-off date i.e.

29.02.2012, his service being less than a year, he was not awarded regularization.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been serving in the NADRA for about 10 years and he has been deprived of the fruit of

regularization despite the fact that other similarly placed employees were awarded regularization in the year 2012.

He stressed his case on the basis of discrimination.

5.Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents denied the stance of petitioner on the score that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain present writ petition as the NADRA has no statutory service rules, therefore, petitioner cannot invoke the powers of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. He argued, that the petitioner was not regularized as his service tenure fall short of the required criteria for the purpose of regularization and there was no discriminatory treatment on the part of department.

6.We have given our deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.

7.Before discussing the merits of writ petition, we would like to ascertain the legitimacy of foremost objection of the learned counsel for respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as the National Database and Registration Authority Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred as Regulations) are non-statutory. The National Database and

Registration Authority (hereinafter referred as NADRA) came into being through the Ordinance No.VIII of 2000 called the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the Ordinance).

The Section 3 of the Ordinance deals in the establishment of the authority and the supervisory role of the Federal Government, which reads as under:

3.Establishment of the Authority —

(1)As soon as may be, but not later than thirty days after the commencement of this Ordinance, the Federal Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Authority to be known as the National Database and Registration Authority for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance.

(2)The Authority shall be a body corporate, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by that name sue and be sued.

(3)The Authority shall consist of a Chairman, also to be called the Registrar General of Pakistan, and not less than five members to be appointed by the Federal Government:

Provided that till such time the Authority is established the Chairman may exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Authority;

Provided further that the Federal Government may, from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, increase or decrease the number of members and prescribe mode of their appointments as it may deem fit;

(4)No person shall be appointed as the Chairman or a member if he has been declared insolvent, or convicted for an offence involving moral; turpitude, or declared to be disqualified from employment in, or dismissed from Government Service.

(5)The Chairman and a member shall, unless he resigns or is removed from office earlier as hereinafter provided, hold office for a term of three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for such a similar term or terms as the Federal Government may determine:

Provided that a Chairman or a member shall retire on attaining the age of sixty-five years.

(6)In case of vacancy occurring due to death, resignation or removal of the Chairman or a member, the Federal Government shall within a period not exceeding sixty days, appoint another qualified person to fill such vacancy.

(7)The Chairman shall be an eminent professional of known integrity and competence with substantial experience in the field of computer science, engineering, statistics, demography, law, business, management, finance, accounting, economics, civil or military administration, or the field of registration.

(8)Every member shall also be a person of known integrity and competence with sufficient experience in the field of computer sciences, engineering, statistics, demography, law, business, management, finance, accounting, economics, civil or military administration, or the field of registration.

(9)No act or proceeding of the authority shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of a vacancy in, or

defect in the constitution of the Authority.

(10)The principal office of the Authority shall be at Islamabad and it may set up offices at such place or places as it may deem appropriate:

Provided that all offices including the District Registration Offices, other offices, counters and any other formation of the Registration Organization as well as that of the National Database Organization along with their entire respective record, shall become and be deemed to be the offices, the District Registration Offices, other offices, counters and other formations of the Authority respectively along with such record.

(11)The Chairman or a member may, by writing under his hand, resign from his office:

Provided that his resignation shall not take effect until accepted by the Federal Government.

(12)The Federal Government may remove the Chairman or any member from office if-

(a)Upon an inquiry, he is found incapable of performing the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical incapacity or has been found guilty of misconduct; or

(b)After his appointment he is disqualified from being so appointed as provided in subsection (4).

8.In view of the above quoted provisions, Subsection

(2)of the Section 3 of the Ordinance, 2000 provides that the Authority shall be a body corporate, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by that name sue and be sued. The Federal Government has supervisory role in the management and administration of the authority. According to subsections (3), (5), (11) & (12) of the Section 3 ibid, the powers to appoint, re-appoint, describe mode of appointment of the chairman and members of authority, increase or decrease in the number of the members, specify the term of office held by chairman or members, accept or reject their resignations, or remove them from the office are vested in the Federal Government.

9.The Section 5 of the Ordinance deals in the purpose, objects, functions and powers of the Authority.

Clause (e) & (f) of the subsection (4) of Section 5 clearly indicates that the authority is bound to report all its functions and performance to the Federal Government and it (authority) is bound by the directives of the Federal Government. The relevant provisions are reproduced here-under:

(4)In particular and without

prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing powers and functions, the

Authority—

(a)to (d) ---

(e)Shall prepare and submit

annual reports to the Federal

Government in respect of performance

and exercise of its functions, powers

and its achievements;

(f)Shall perform any other

function and exercise any other power

as may be entrusted to or vested in the authority by the Federal Government

which is supplemental, incidental or

consequential to any of the aforesaid

powers and functions and the objects

and purpose of the authority;

10.According to Section 44 of the Ordinance, the Federal Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance; and the most important section of the Ordinance, directly relates to the present controversy regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition, is Section 45 of the Ordinance which confers powers to Authority to make Regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or the rules, for the carrying out of its functions under this Ordinance and any other matter for which, under this Ordinance, provisions may be made by regulations; and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such regulations may provide for appointment of Registration Officers, members of its staff, experts, consultants, advisers and other officers and employees and the terms and conditions, of their service. For the sake of convenience, the Section 45 of the Ordinance, 2000, is reproduced hereunder:

45.Regulations.— (1) The

Authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or the rules, for the carrying out of its functions under this Ordinance and any other matter for which, under this Ordinance, provisions may be made by regulations.

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such regulations may provide for

appointment of Registration Officers, members of its staff, experts, consultants, advisers and other officers and employees and the terms and conditions, of their service:

Provided that, subject to the provisions of section 40 till the time any amendments are made or any fresh regulations are made in this behalf, any rules or regulations governing the terms and conditions of their service and in

force at the time of the establishment of the Authority shall be applied as nearly as practicable in the same manner as

before to the extent the same are not

inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, with any references to the

Directorate General of Registration, or any competent Authority by whatever

nomenclature therein to be deemed to

be a reference to the Authority.

11.In pursuance of power conferred upon the Authority under the supra section, the Authority has approved the Regulations, called, “National Database and Registration Authority Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002” to govern the terms and conditions of the service of employees of the NADRA. There is no denial of the fact that section 45 of the Ordinance, 2000, empowered the Authority to make regulations. It is also pertinent to mention that the dominant control and management under the Ordinance, 2000, vests in the Federal Government. Overall superintendence and directions of the affairs and the business of the Authority have been entrusted and vested in the Authority. The Chairman or Registrar General is also to be appointed by

the Federal Government. The perusal of Sections 3, 5, 26, 33, 38, 44, 45 and 47 leads to an irresistible conclusion that not only the NADRA is creation of the Statute but effective and substantial role of the Federal Government in its affairs is also directly involved.

12.Now, taking the case with another aspect for the purpose of amenability under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The sub-article 1(a)(i) and sub-article 1(c) of Article 199 of the Constitution defines the ‘Person’ as under:

1 (a)(i) Directing a person

performing, within the territorial

jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the

Federation, a Province or a local

authority, to refrain from doing

anything he is not permitted by law to

do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or

1(c) on the application of any

aggrieved person, make an order

giving such directions to any person

or authority, including any

government exercising any power or

performing any function in, or in

relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of

any of the Fundamental Rights

conferred by Chapter I of Part-II.

The term “Person” has also been denoted in Article 199 (5) of the Constitution in the following manner:-

“Person” includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government, and

any Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a

Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan.

13.Besides, in order to ascertain the term “Person” the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled, Salah ud Din Vs. Frontier Sugar Mill Ltd (PLD 1975 SC 244) formulated a test fulfilling the following three conditions

in order to consider it as “Person” performing function in connection with the affairs of the Government.

i. Function of the State including some exercise of the severing of public powers;

ii. Control of organization of person shall be substantially in the hand of Government; and

iii. The bulk of the fund is provided by the State.

Thereby the august Apex Court was pleased to hold that the Service Rules framed by the Pakistan Red Crescent Society are statutory as these had been framed under section 5 of the Red Crescent Act, but the argument was repelled by the august Court by holding that Rules not approved by the Federal Government were non-statutory.

14.The above quoted criteria were further adopted by the august Apex Court in cases titled, Aitcheson College Vs. Muhammad Zubair (PLD 2002 SC 326) and Pakistan International Airlines Vs. Tanweer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676). In this regard, we are also fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ‘Shafique Ahmad Khan and others Vs. NESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad and others’ (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 377) wherein the august Apex Court

was pleased to held that where approval of the Rules is not the requirement of Statute, the Rules cannot be declared non-statutory and relevant excerpt of the judgment of august Court is reproduced as under:

“Fact that certain Rules or Regulation were framed without the approval of the Federal Government was not the sole criteria to term them as non- statutory in nature. It was indeed their nature and area of efficacy which were determinative of their status.

Rules dealing with instructions of internal control or management were treated as non-statutory while those, whose area of efficacy was broader and were complementary to the parent statute in the matters of crucial importance were statutory. The Rules framed under sections 7, 9 and 15 of the Act fell in the latter category as they were not only broader in their area of efficacy but were also complementary to the parent statute in matters of crucial importance. It

would rather be naiv and even myopic to equate the Rules of the Authority dealing with matters of crucial importance having so wide a scope and area of efficacy with the instructions meant for internal management and thereby depriving them for their statutory status.

Although, said rules have not been framed with the intervention and approval of the Federal Government, but that would not prevent them from being statutory. First, because approval of Federal Government was not required either under section 9 or 15 of the Act; secondly because, all those who called the shots were already part of the Authority while framing the Rules, and thirdly because; the scope and area of their efficacy not only stretched beyond the employees of the Authority but overreached many other strategic organizations including nuclear and space related technologies systems

and matters, as mentioned in sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Rules enacted and approved by members of the

Authority under sections 7, 9 and 15 of the Act also did not require another approval of yet any other personage.”

15.Thus, under Section 45 of the Ordinance, 2000, there is no requirement of the legislature that the regulations framed by the Authority are subject to the approval of government. The NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 backed by the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, are thus, held to be statutory. Guidance derived from:

a. Muhammad Zaman and 14 others Vs

Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 571) b. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Vs Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others (2017 SCMR 2010)

c. Bahadar Khan and others Vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/O Finance, Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 2066) d. Pakistan Defence Officer, Housing

Authority and others Vs Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmad (2013 SCMR 1707)

e. Saghir Ahmad through Legal Heirs vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Lahore and others (PLD 2004 SC 261)

16.We also deem it apposite to pass the question of maintainability of this petition through the function test as prescribed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Wahab and others Vs. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383). The relevant excerpt from Abdul Wahab case supra runs as under:

6.Heard. In our view following are the broader (important) questions in the matter, which shall encompass the points in issue between the parties and the answers thereto:

(i)What is the status of the Bank; the status and relationship of its employees (the petitioners) vis-a-vis the Bank;

(ii)Whether the petition is maintainable in terms of Article 184(3) of the

Constitution;

(iii)Whether there is a violation of any of the fundamental rights of the

petitioners, especially in relation to the right to life (Article 9), and right to equality (Article 25). And other Articles of the Constitution, such as, Articles 3, 4, 8, 27, 29, 37 and 38 etc.;

(iv)Whether the Bank's action against the petitioners is arbitrary, whimsical and discriminatory, thus Article 25 of the Constitution should be resorted to in allowing relief to the petitioners.

17.While taking Question-1 into account, we have already discussed in the preceding Paras that the NADRA is a creation of Statute and it (NADRA) is a person in view of the sub-article 1(a)(i) and sub-article

1(c) of Article 199 of the Constitution. Therefore, no doubt it is a statutory body. Besides, Federal Government has the powers to regulate the authority, supervise its affairs and issue other commands as to management and control of the authority. The relation between NADRA and its employees is also statutory as provided under Section 35 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. However, the terms & conditions of NADRA employees are governed by the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002, framed under Section 45 of the Ordinance. There is also no denial of the fact that other similarly placed employees of NADRA have been awarded the fruit of regularization but petitioner discriminated on the basis of gap of two days and despite rendering further services over a span of seven years after that two days the petitioner could not get the benefit of regularization like other employees. After giving one- time benefit of regularization to NADRA employees on 29.02.2012, the respondent-department has arbitrarily overlooked the rights of petitioner. List, showing those employees who were though appointed later than the petitioner but regularized, is given below:-

Name Region Date of Date of Date of Current place promotion/ Birth appointment in contractual of posting. existing grade appointment

Mahwish Hayat RHO 14-Apr-90 13.March-11 13.March-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Ms. Nazia RHO 29-Dec-87 28.March-11 28.March-11 RHO Peshawar Peshawar

Asis Tahira Dilshad RHO 19-Nov-84 03-Jul-11 03.Jul-11 RHO Multan Multan

Muhammad Younas RHO 05-Feb-85 09-Jul-11 09.Jul-11 RHO Multan Multan

Hidayat Ullah RHO 28-Feb-88 17-Sep-11 17-Sep-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Jamil Ahmad RHO 01-Aug-84 04-Oct-11 04-Oct-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Nabi Bukhsh RHO 01-Feb-85 04-Oct-11 04-Oct-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Irfan Ali RHO 25-Aug-85 04-Oct-11 04-Oct-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Arbab Ali RHO 01-Oct-85 04-Oct-11 04-Oct-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Abdul Nasir Khan RHO 02-Apr-87 21-Oct-11 21-Oct-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Shamsullah RHO 13-Apr-89 04-Oct-11 04-Oct-11 RHO Quetta Quetta

Although the NADRA is a statutory body but if at all we presume it not statutory even then, the case of the petitioner is based upon discrimination as other similarly

placed employees, mentioned above, have been regularized by the department, which is, otherwise, violation of rights conferred under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

18.In view of foregoing, we are clear in our mind that the aforesaid test/criteria fully meet in the present case, and the NADRA is a statutory body having statutory Service Regulations, 2002, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.

19.While coming to the facts of the present writ petition; there is no denial of the fact that all the contractual employees of the NADRA, having one-year contractual service on or before 29.02.2012 were regularized either in the EPS (Option-I, an open ended contract) or in BPS (Option-II), till superannuation), according to their own choice which they submitted on the prescribed ‘Option Form’. No doubt, the petitioner too submitted his option form to avail BPS/Option-II, but he was not considered.

20.The comments, submitted by respondents, unfold that the reason advanced for non-award of the benefit of regularization was less than one-year contractual service of petitioner, thus he stood ineligible to exercise option

under the regularization scheme. He was appointed as Junior Executive on short term contract for a period of six months at RHO Peshawar on 02.03.2010, and per policy of the NADRA, after completing one year short term service contract, the status of employee/petitioner changed into contract basis for a period of three years subject to qualifying test to be conducted on completion of one year of short term service. Petitioner appeared in the test conducted on 12.02.2011 at RHO Peshawar and qualified the same. Resultantly, his employment status was changed from short term to contract in T-I scale with effect from 02.03.2011 and accordingly fresh contract letter was issued to him for a period of three years up to 01.03.2014. Upon expiry of contract, his contract was extended to a further period on the basis of recommendations of the concerned Head of Region and organizational requirement and last extension in contract was granted him up to 31.12.2021. It was further contended in the comments that according to Chapter-I, Section 2(1-i) of the Service Regulations, 2002, the short-term employment for a period of six months is not covered in the definition of NADRA employee.

21.What we cater from the comments, is that the right of regularization to petitioner was denied only because of

the shortage of 02 days from one year’s contractual service. It is also an admitted fact that before his contractual service, the petitioner performed service for a period of one year. Although, short term contract for a period of six months is not countable towards NADRA service but, herein the case petitioner performed duties for a period of one year on the basis whereof his status was changed to contractual employee. The performance of duties for a period of one year on short term contract cannot be excluded from the career of petitioner. In a case titled ‘Civil Aviation Authority through Director General CAA and 3 others VS. Mst. Gul Yasim’ 2019 PLC (C.S.) 130 it was held by the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court that if a government servant without any break continuously remained in service then he had the right that his service be counted towards pay, pension and promotion.

22.Record reveals that the petitioner was appointed after due course of law and fulfilment of codal formalities and since the date of his appointment i.e.

02.03.2010 he has been performing duties and last extension in contract was granted to him up-to 31.12.2021 but without any job security and with no end in the future. Petitioner, even otherwise, has become

overage to get the job anywhere else and especially in the circumstances when he has acquired the requisite qualification for the post and appointed in due course of law, he has the right to continue against the same.

Reliance is placed on the case titled “Sher Alam and 9 others Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary SAFRON, and 5 others” 2019 PLC (C.S.) 12 (Peshawar High Court).

23.The period of petitioner is being extended by the authority for more than 10 years as the authority is fully satisfied with his performance, which fact itself reflects that his services are not only required for the Department, rather the same are beneficial for the department as well.

Furthermore, there is no allegation/ complaint against the petitioner with regard to carrying out official duties;

rather extension of the period, time and again, in his favour shows trust of the authority upon him. Such extensions in the tenure of service of petitioner has undeniably created a legitimate expectancy in the mind of petitioner with reference to his retention in the service.

The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken serious view of keeping employees in hanging position for a long time without regularizing their services. Reliance is place on the case titled “BISE, Faisalabad through Chairman

and others VS. Tanveer Sajid and others” (2018 S C M R 1405), wherein it was held:

“---Daily wagers/contract employees of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education ("the Board")--- Regularization in service--- Respondent-employees had been working in the establishment of the Board for long period of time ranging between 3 to 12 years, on contract basis---Contracts of said employees provided that they were initially appointed for a period of 89 days but after the expiry of said period, their contracts were renewed from time to time for further periods of 89 days at a time with an artificial break of 1 or more days; held, that motive behind such artificial break was to avoid regularization of respondents' services on the pretext that they were not continuously in service---Since the respondents were in service for a long time, it clearly showed that the posts

they were occupying were permanent

in nature and not casual or temporary- --Services of respondents were not

only required but also beneficial to

the Board and that they (respondents)

had been performing their duties with

due diligence to the satisfaction of the authorities---High Court had rightly

directed the Board to regularize

services of respondents---Supreme

Court deprecated the practice of

keeping employees on temporary

basis for long periods of time without confirming or regularizing their

services---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

24.The petitioner had been discriminated as other employees who were appointed in the similar manner, were subsequently confirmed and regularized in February-2012. Though there are no statutory provisions or any other terms & conditions which may support the plea of petitioner for his regularization, rather such plea is dependent upon the discrimination and length of his service rendered in the respondent-department. Guidance

derived from the cases titled, Abdul Ghafoor and others VS. The President National Bank of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 157), Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, DG Khan and another VS.

Muhammad Altaf and others (2018 SCMR 325), Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad through Chairman and others Vs. Tanveer Sajid and others (2018 SCMR 1405), and Messrs State Oil Company Limited Vs. Bakht Siddique and others (2018

SCMR 1181).

25.Besides the aspect of discrimination is apparent on the face of record that the respondent-department awarded the benefit of regularization to all the other similarly placed employees; but the rights of petitioner were infringed owing to shortage of 02 days and now despite passing of seven years department has not considered the rights of petitioner, who could not avail benefit of regularization in the year 2012. As discussed above, one-year duties performed as short-term contract cannot be excluded from the career of petitioner rather the same was an essential part of the career and therefore, being appointed on 02.03.2010, the petitioner was having two years’ service on the cut-off date of 29.02.2012.

26.In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed, the shortage of 02 days in the contractual service, required for regularization of petitioner, is condoned by adding his previous one-year short term employment in the same department and respondent- department is hereby directed to regularize the services of petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2012 in the option of BPS. On account of this regularization, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay except notional increase in his present salary. No order as to cost.

Announced.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Amjad PS DB Hon’ble Mr. Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, CJ & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahmad Ali