' JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).---This judgment will dispose of the following connected appeals which involve the same questions of fact and of
(1) Dr. Naveeda Tufail v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,370 of 2007).
(2) Jehanzeb' Khan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,371 of 2007).
(3) Nadir Ali v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,372 of 2007).
(4) Muhammad Aftab v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,373 of 2007).
(5) Muhammad Bukhsh v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,374 of 2007).
(6) Liaqat Hussain Abbasi v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,375 of 2007).
(7) Sliabana Parveen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,376 of 2007).
(8) Naimat Ullah v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,377 of 2007).
(9) Suhail Ahmad Chaudhry v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,378 of 2007).
(10) Raja Khalid Manzoor v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,379 of 2007).
(11) Nawab Khan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,380 of 2007).
(12) Afrasiab v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,381 of 2007).
(13) Rehana Shahab v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,382 of 2007).
(14) Munaza Zafar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,383 of 2007).
(15) Safia Bibi v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,384 of 2007).
(16) Syed Mehmood Ureed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,385 of 2007).
(17) Naveeda Liaqat v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,386 of 2007).
(18) Muhammad Anwar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,387 of 2007).
(19) Muhammad Nadeem v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,388 of 2007).
(20) Hafiz Muhammad Bashir v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,389 of 2007).
(21) Nazar Hussain v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,390 of 2007).
(22) Syed Israr Hussain v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,391 of 2007).
(23) Shafqat Jabeen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,392 of 2007).
(24) Muhammad Siddiq v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No, 393 of 2007).
(25) Nusrat Parveen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,394 of 2007).
(26) Muhammad Iqbal v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,395 of 2007).
(27) Hafiz Muhammad Saeed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,396 of 2007).
(28) Abdul Wahid v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,397 of 2007).
(29) Arshad Mehmood v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,398 of 2007).
(30) Sarfraz Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,399 of 2007).
(31) Noor Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,400 of 2007).
(32) Najma Jabeen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,401 of 2007).
(33) Sajida Fatima v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,402 of 2007).
(34) Muhammad Tariq Mehmood v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,403 of 2007).
(35) Muhammad Zulfiqar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,404 of 2007).
(36) Mehmood Akhtar Jamil v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,405 of 2007).
(37) Abdul Rauf v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,406 of 2007).
(38) Muhammad Tayyab v. Secretary, Education. Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,407 of 2007).
(39) Shahid Pervaiz v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,408 of 2007).
(40) Naz Tasneem v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,409 of 2007).
(41) Shahid Qayyum v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,410 of 2007).
(42) Muhammad Nadeem Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,411 of 2007).
43. Muhammad Javed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,412 of 2007).
(44) Sajida Fatima v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,413 of 2007).
(45) Khalid Javed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,414 of 2007).
(46) Amjad Hussain Gondal v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,415 of 2007).
(47) Saif Ullah Khalid v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,416 of 2007).
(48) Sajjad Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,417 of 2007).
(49) Raja Nisar Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,418 of 2007).
(50) Muhammad Amjad Malik v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,419 of 2007).
(51) Malik Tariq Saleem v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,420 of 2007).
(52) Saeed Ahmad Chawla v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,421 of 2007).
(53) Kausar Muslim v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,422 of 2007).
(54) Farzana Maqbool v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,423 of 2007).
(55) Shabbir Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,424 of 2007).
(56) Muhammad Naeem Khan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,440 of 2007).
(57) Kaukab Iqbal v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,441 of 2007).
(58) Tasnim Kasuar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,442 of 2007).
(59) Sajjad Hussain v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,443 of 2007).
(60) Muhammad Akmal Khan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,444 of 2007).
(61) Shaista Tabassum v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,445 of 2007).
(62) Khaliq Dad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,446 of 2007).
(63) Munir Hussain v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,447 of 2007).
(64) Tahira Bano v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,448 of 2007).
(65) Shazia Noreen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,449 of 2007).
(66) Shehnaz Anjum v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,450 of 2007).
(67) Malika Rizwana v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,451 of 2007).
(68) Miss Tasnim Ibrahim v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,452 of 2007).
(69) Shahida Parveen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,453 of 2007).
(70) Rukhsana Qamar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,454 of 2007).
(71) Shafique Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,455 of 2007).
(72) Saadia Alam v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,456 of 2007).
(73) Arshad Hussain Shah v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,457 of 2007).
(74) Umtul Waheed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,458 of 2007).
(76) Mubarika Tanvir v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,459 of 2007).
(76) Ambreen Rehmat v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,460 of 2007).
(77) Tahira Nasim v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,461 of 2007).
(78) Faqeer Muhammad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,462 of 2007).
(79) Ahmar Rauf v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,463 of 2007).
(80) Nabila Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,464 of 2007).
(81) Muhammad Alam v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,465 of 2007).
(82) Zubaida Tabassum v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,466 of 2007).
(83) Tallat Nasim v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,467 of 2007).
(84) Naeema Akhtar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,468 of 2007).
(85) Ayaz Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,469 of 2007).
(86) Hamida Naqvi v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,470 of 2007).
(87) Saadia Naz v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,471 of 2007).
(88) Shahnila Iram v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,472 of 2007).
(89) Anjum Jabeen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,473 of 2007).
(90) Rubina Ashfaq v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,474 of 2007).
(91) Ijaz Hussain v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,475 of 2007).
(92) Sajida Parveen v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,476 of 2007).
(93) Muhammad Ashraf v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,477 of 2007).
(94) Riffat Afzal v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,478 of 2007).
(95) Shams-ud-Din Zafar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,479 of 2007).
(96) Shafique Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal. No,480 of 2007).
(97) Hafiz Abdul Khaliq v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,481 of 2007).
(98) Jameel Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,482 of 2007).
(99) Munawar Yasin v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,483 of 2007).
(100) Aasia Zaheer v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,484 of 2007).
(101) Shehnaz Akhtar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab' and others (Service Appeal No,485 of 2007).
(102) Muhammad Khalid Nazir v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,486 of 2007).
(103) Memoona Ishrat v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,487 of 2007).
(104) Kaneez Fatima v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,488 of 2007).
(105) Sabiha Khanum v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,489 of 2007).
(106) Shezadi Sarwat v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and ,others (Service Appeal No,490 of 2007).
(107)Aalia Rehman v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,491 of 2007).
(108)Qamar-un-Nisa v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,492 of 2007).
(109)Syed Iftikhar Hussain v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,493 of 2007).
(110)Ghulam Yasin v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,494 of 2007).
(111)Yasmin Bibi v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,495 of 2007).
(112)Allah Bukhsh v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,496 of 2007).
(113)Shahid Mehmood v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,497 of 2007).
(114)Amjad Majeed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,498 of 2007).
(115)Jamil Ahmad Sharif v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,499 of 2007).
(116)Faiz Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,500 of 2007).
(117)Tanvir Afroze v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,501 of 2007).
(118)Nazia Aslam v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,502 of 2007).
(119)Humaira Ramzan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and otheis (Service Appeal No,503 of 2007).
(120)Saadia Sultan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,504 of 2007).
(121)Abida Khurshid v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,505 of 2007).
(122)Muhammad Amir Ali v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,575 of 2007).
(123)Shamim Ahmad v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,576 of 2007).
(124)Nisar Ahmad Siddiqui v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,577 of 2007).
(125)Aziz-ul-Haq v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,578 of 2007).
(126)Rashid Hameed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,579 of 2007).
(127)Muhammad Saleem v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,580 of 2007).
(128)Muhammad Bashir v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,581 of 2007).
(129)Tahira Minhas v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,582 of 2007).
(130)Sultana Masud v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,583 of 2007).
(131)Zahida Begum v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,584 of 2007).
(132)Miss Sadaf Siddiq v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,585 of 2007).
(133)Muhammad Imran v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,586 of 2007).
(134)Abdul Sattar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,587 of 2007).
(135)Muhammad Abdullah v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,588 of 2007).
(136)Shah Jehan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,589 of 2007).
(137)Rashid Awais v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,590 of 2007).
(138)Muhammad Nawaz v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,591 of 2007).
(139)Ziarat Ali v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,592 of 2007).
(140)Khalid Mehmood v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,593 of 2007).
(141)Mohsin Naeem Mujahid v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,594 of 2007).
(142)Kh. Shahid Hameed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,595 of 2007).
(143)Zahida Tabasum v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,596 of 2007).
(144)Javed Kumar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,597 of 2007).
(145)Allah Rakha v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,598 of 2007).
(146)Muhammad Javed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,599 of 2007).
(147)Syed Anwar-ul-Hassan v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,600 of 2007).
(148)Gauhar Altaf v. Secretary, Education,Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,601 of 2007).
(149)Abdul Ghaffar Dogar v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,602 of 2007).
(150)Muhammad Abbas v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,655 of 2007).
(151)Asma Shafi v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,656 of 2007).
(152)Rubina Javed v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,923 of 2007).
(153)Shafqat Khurshid v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,924 of 2007).
(154)Gulshan Zubair v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,925 of 2007).
(155)Tanvir Bashir v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,926 of 2007).
(156)Shabnam Ajmal v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,927 of 2007).
(157)Fozia Imrana v. Secretary, Education, Punjab and others (Service Appeal No,928 of 2007).
2. The brief facts are that the appellants joined service as ad hoc Lecturers in different years (most of them joined service in the year 1996). However, their services were terminated in the year 2001.
After exhausting departmental remedies, they had recourse to this Tribunal but their appeals were dismissed and then they filed petitions for leave to appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. All the connected petitions i,e, Civil petitions Nos.1093 to 1117, 1135 to 1141, 1169 to 1183, 1190 to 1214 and 1229 of 2002 which were directed against the judgment of this Tribunai, dated 3-5-2002 were decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide a consolidated judgment, dated 25-9-2002 in the case of "Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others reported as 2003 SCM R 291 (Supreme Court of Pakistan). Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan directed the respondents to initiate the process of regularization of the appellants through Punjab Service Tribunal within a period of one month and it was clarified that the cases of the appellants shall be sent separately to the Punjab Public Service Commission and shall not .Be tagged with the direct recruits. It was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that in case any of the petitioners is not found suitable by the Punjab Public Service Commission, he shall not be entitled to be retained in service. Thus, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petitions for leave to appeal into appeals and disposed of the same accordingly.
3. As a result of the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the respondent Department referred the matter to the Punjab Public Service Commission for determination of the eligibility/suitability of the appellants and for regularization of their ad hoc employment.
4. The appellants have averred that they were called for interview by the Punjab Public Service Commission and after assessm ent of their eligibility they were recommended for regularization.
However, respondent No,1 issued their fresh letters of appointment in September, 2003, instead of regularization of their services from the date of their appointment. They filed departmental appeals/representations but the same did not yield a positive result. The appellant filed Writ Petition No,18054 of 2003 before the Honourable Lahore High Court but the same was dismissed.
She also filed a Criminal Original No,80 of 2003 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which was later on withdrawn. She again filed a petition for a writ of Mandamus before the Honourable Lahore High Court. But despite a direction by the Honourable Lahore High Court, the representation filed by her was not decided and as such she had to filed a criminal original, during the proceedings of which the departmental representative made a statement before the Honourable High Court for the disposal of the representations/departmental appeals of the appellants within a specified period. Later on the order, dated 22-1-2007 was communicated to the appellant regarding rejection of her departmental appeal/representation and hence she filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
5. Besides Dr. Naveeda Tufail, other appellants whose appeals are also being disposed of through this consolidated judgment have also challenged the impugned orders on account of the same grievance and have urged the same grounds for acceptance of their appeals.
6. The respondents have resisted all the appeals on the plea that Punjab Public Service Commission had called the ad hoc Lecturers and the outcome had remained as under:--
(i) 402 male ad hoc Lecturers applied to the Punjab Public Service Commission, out of which 43 were found ineligible and 359 were summoned for interview. 280 were declared eligible by the P.P.S.C.
(ii) 352 female ad hoc Lecturers applied to P.P.S.C., out of which 44 were found ineligible and 308 were summoned for interview. 245 were declared eligible by P.P.S.C.
(iii) The remaining ad hoc Lecturers either did not appear before P.P.S.C. Or could not qualify as they failed in interview.
7. The respondents have taken the plea that the ad hoc Lecturers had filed representations in the Education Department wherein they had demanded regularization of their ad hoc service for protection of pay and increments earned during ad hoc period, allowances and length of service to be determined accordingly. However, after perusing the record and in the light of the relevant rules, their representations were rejected vide order, dated 22-1-2007. They have also taken the plea that the orders of appointment of the appellants as Lecturers on regular basis were issued as per recommendations of the Punjab. Public Service Commission. However, there was no direction in the judgment of the Honourable apex Court to regularize the services of the ad hoc Lecturers with retrospective effect i,e, from the dates of their appointment on ad hoc basis. They have averred that the appellants cannot be allowed the benefit to which they are not entitled. In this respect they have referred to the following two conditions of the offer of appointment of ad hoc Lecturers in December, 1995:---
(i) The ad hoc appointment will not confer any right of regular appointment to the same post nor the service will be counted towards seniority (condition-V of the letter).
(ii) You will not agitate or approach the higher authorities for regularization of your ad hoc appointment (condition xi of the letter).
8. The respondents have taken the plea that the ad hoc service of the appellants, cannot be counted towards seniority and as there was a gap between their ad hoc service and the date of regularization of their services, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits of their pay, increments etc. For the intervening period. They have thus, asserted that the appeals filed by the appellants are without any lawful basis and are liable to be dismissed.
9. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides and have also gone through the record.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that after the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 25-9-2002 (2003 SCM R 291), the respondents had filed Civil Review Petitions Nos.153 to 224 of 2002 (73 in number) and the said review petitions were dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 9-1-2003. The learned counsel for the appellants have produced a copy of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court, dated 9-1-2003 passed in the aforesaid review petitions. Para.4 of the judgment in the aforesaid review petition reads as under:-- "We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents-caveators have not been able to find out any patent error on the face of record or a legal ground for review of the judgment as all the grounds taken in support of these petitions have already been considered in the judgment. It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that despite lapse of a considerable period, the relevant quarters in the Government of Punjab have taken no step for implementation of the judgment. We, therefore, direct that concerned authorities in the Government of Punjab must ensure implementation of judgment within one month."
11. It would be appropriate to reproduce below paras. Nos.11 and 12 of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v.
Government of Punjab and others 2003 SCM R 291 (Supreme Court of Pakistan), which read as under:--
(11) The concept of regularization of ad hoc employees is evident from; the above referred policies of the Federal Government and in the light of these precedents, the petitioners would be justified to ask for regularization. We have been informed that the petitioners have served on ad hoc basis for a number of years without break and some of them were in service as ad hoc employees since long. The employment for a common person is the source of livelihood and right of livelihood is an undeniable right to a person. If the work is the sole source of livelihood of a person, the right to work shall not be less than a fundamental right which should be given protection accordingly. Therefore, the petitioners who have served the education department for such a long period, would deserve to be given fair chance of regularization in the given situation. The learned Advocate-General, Punjab, without offering any explanation of keeping the petitioners in service on ad hoc basis for such a long period and not fulfilling the vacancies on regular basis, submitted that in absence of policy of regularization, certain concessions, as mentioned in the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal, were given to the petitioners to appear before the Public Service Commission for selection with direct recruits but except of few none has availed this opportunity.
The learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage has submitted that if the cases of the petitioners are referred to the Public Service Commission for regularization in the light of policy of regularization of the Federal Government, they shall be satisfied.
(12) We having examined the above scheme find that in the similar circumstances, the Federal Government while giving fair treatment to its employees appointed on ad hoc basis successively framed policies for regularization through the process of selection by the Public Service Commission. It is stated that all Provincial Governments, except Government of Punjab, following the Federal Government also adopted the policy of regularization and gave their employees the equal treatment. The petitioners, being ad hoc employees of Provincial Government, cannot claim regularization as of right in the light of policy of Federal Government but the principle of equality as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, would demand that they while facing the similar circumstances, should be treated in the same manner. The principle of equality would impliedly be attracted in favour of the petitioners as they being ad hoc lecturers in the Provincial Government, would stand at par to that of the ad hoc employees of the Federal Government and therefore, it would be fair, just and proper to consider their cases for regularization. We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Maqbool Ellahi Malik, learned Advocate-General Punjab, assisted by Mr. Tariq Mahmood Khokhar, Additional Advocate-General, are of the view that since substantial questions of public importance are involved in the present petitions, therefore, the technical objection that the questions not raised before the Tribunal, cannot be allowed to be raised before this Court, is net entertained. The authorities in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, while adopting the method of ad hoc appointments as a continuous policy, created a legitimate expectancy in the mind of petitioners for their retention on regular basis and therefore, we deem it proper to direct that the respondents while seeking guidance from the scheme of regularization of ad hoc employees of Federal Government referred above, will initiate the process of regularization of the petitioners through Punjab Public Service Commission giving the concession as mentioned in the reply filed by the respondents in the Punjab Service Tribunal within a period of one month and meanwhile without prejudice to the right of the selectees of the Public Service Commission for appointment on regular basis, the posts which were being held by the petitioners shall not be filled. It is clarified that the cases of the petitioners shall be sent separately to the Public Service Commission and shall not be tagged with the direct recruits. In case any of the petitioners is not found suitable, by the Public Service Commission, he shall not be entitled 'to be retained in service.
12. The departmental representative while very ably putting forward the case of the appellants has asserted that there is no mention in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan of reinstatement and in fact the actual word which has been used is "regularization". However, he was reminded that the words "regularization" and "retention" in service do indicate that the appellants were already in service (though on ad hoc basis).
13. In the course of arguments, both the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that by filing.
This appeal, the appellants do not claim seniority as against the selectees of Punjab Public Service Commission (who had been selected before the regularization of their services) nor they claim the arrears of pay for the intervening period). They have contended that the appellants will be satisfied if the intervening period (between the date of their termination of their services and the date of the regularization of services) is treated as leave without pay.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants have pointed out that case of some of the appellants is of serious hardship. For instance, Mr. Nadir Ali (Service Appeal No,372 of 2007) had joined service on ad hoc basis on 30-11-1974 and his ad hoc appointment had remained continuous. He had applied for regularization of service along with 225 other Lecturers and whose services were actually regularized by the Government (without referring their case to the Punjab Public Service Commission). However, due to some omission, his name was not included in the notification, dated 30-11-1976 and he was still continuing in service since his induction as ad hoc Lecturer since 1974. In this respect, the Education Department had admitted the said mistake and had referred the matter to the Service and General Administration Department. However, the Service and General Administration Department had advised them to seek approval of the Chief Minister, Punjab for relaxation of rules and to route his case through the Regulation Wing, being a case of hardship, but in spite of admitting the mistake, nothing had been done by the Department in this regard. The learned counsel for the appellants have also referred to the case of Tahira Minhas, appellant in Service Appeal No,582 of 2007, who was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis on 3-5-1989, and who had worked as such even during the intervening period, although she had not drawn any salary for performing the duty under the orders of the Principal even during the said period before her regularization (after she had been terminated). They have also referred to the case of Aasia Zaheer, appellant, in Service Appeal No,484 of 2007, who joined as Lecturer in 199Q and to case of Naaz Tasnim (appellant in Service Appeal No,409 of 2007); Muhammad Aamir Ali (appellant in Service Appeal No,575 of 2007); Shamim Ahmad (appellant in Service Appeal No,576 of 2007); Shahida Parveen (appellant in Service Appeal No,453 of 2007); Shahnaz Anjum (appellant in Service Appeal No,450 of 2007); Muhammad Bukhsh (appellant in Service Appeal No,374 of 2007) and Allah Rakha (appellant in Service Appeal No,598 of 2007), all of whom had joined service in the year 1993 as ad hoc Lecturers.
15. It may be mentioned here that the Punjab Public Service Commission in consequence of the interview of the candidates had recommended for their regularization and hence respondent No,1 issued the orders for their appointment. In any way, whatever be the nature of the letter of appointment which was issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission; the fact remains that the services of the appellants had been regularized. There is no cavil with the proposition that the regularization is to be considered from the date when it was made and not from the date when they had been appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis. The question in this appeal is merely of the regularization of the intervening period i,e, the gap period between the date of termination of their service and the date of regularization of their service. In this respect the learned counsel for the appellants have pointed to the case of certain Subject Specialists whose intervening period had been regularized by the Government and in this respect they also produced copies of relevant orders at the time of arguments. Reference was specifically made to order/notification No,S.O.(S-V)28-5/2001, dated 21-9-2005. In the case of the aforesaid Subject Specialists for bridging the intervening gap period, ex post facto sanction had been granted in relaxation of Rule 22 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1974. In the case of the appellants also, on the basis of the principle of consistency, the respondents can seek orders, from the competent authority i,e, th? Honourable Chief Minister, Punjab for grant of ex post facto sanction for extension of ad hoc period till the date of their regularization on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission. This will not only serve the interests of justice but will also redress the grievance of the appellants to a large extent.
In this respect reference may be made to a letter No,8909/S-2, dated 28-2-2006 addressed by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department (Higher Education), Lahore. Paras. Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the said letter read as under:-- "(2) The Punjab Public Service Commission after observing all the formalities examined their cases and recommended the eligible ad hoc Lecturers for appointment as regular Lecturers vide its memo. No,PSC-RA-I1/2003-5/5-RA, dated 7-8-2003.
(3) It is pertinent to mention here that the Education Department terminated the services of the ad hoc Lecturers on 5-8-2000 on the expiry of the tenure of their ad hoc appointment. From the date of their termination to their selection/regularization from the Punjab Public Service Commission, a gap of more than two or three years did appear.
(4) The ad hoc Lecturers have moved Criminal Original No,80 of 2003 in C.P.L.A. No,1093 of 2002 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which is still pending in the Honourable Court.
However, the ad hoc Lecturers have put forward some proposals to stop litigation (copy enclosed), on the grounds of which following recommendations are made by the undersigned:--
(a) Due to termination of ad hoc Lecturers on 5-8-2000, there has appeared a break of more than 2 to 3 years. This gap may be bridged by providing/adding/granting increments for the said period and this gap may be considered as "leave without pay". However, they may not be considered for regularization from retrospective effect i,e, from the date of thief induction as ad hoc Lecturers.
(b) Previous service of the ad hoc Lecturers may be counted for increments and for length of service, for the purpose of pension etc. Their pay and pre-requisite may be protected."
16. The aforesaid recommendations of the D.P.I. (Colleges), Punjab, Lahore were reasonable and should have been acceded to but unfortunately it was not done.
17. In view of what has been stated above, all these appeals are accepted and it is directed that the respondents will take necessary steps urgently for bridging the intervening gap period (between the date of termination of services of the appellants and the date of regularization of their services through Punjab Public Service Commission) and in this respect they will request the competent.
Authority i,e, the Chief Minister, Punjab for the grant of ex post facto extension in the ad hoc period of appointment of the appellants till the date of regularization of their services through Punjab Public Service Commission and to consider the said gap period as leave without pay. It is however, clarified that after such extension is ordered in relaxation of rules, the appellants will be entitled only to protection of their pay, to the increments that had become due and to the pensioner benefits for the said extended ad hoc period but they will not claim seniority on the basis of the said service nor will they claim arrears of pay for the said period.
18. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.