Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Ghulam Shabbir Rawan petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 6.3.1997 together with subsequently impugned order of declining his request of regularization into service dated 15.8.2003 by declaring to be arbitrary, excessive, unlawful and void ab-initio.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in response to advertisement published in the daily newspaper 'DAWN' dated 9.11.1992, for the appointment of Associate Engineer (Electronics) and the petitioner possessing required qualifications and being qualified, applied for one of the post and obtained 71 marks out of hundred and was qualified for the needful and was duly got approved by the Selection Committee as well as by the Managing Director accordingly. However, the respondents ignoring the merits, on the basis of nepotism and favoritism, recruited out some candidates. The petitioner moved an application to the higher authorities and vide order dated 6.2.1994, the petitioner was appointed as Associate Engineer (Electronics) on daily wages at the rate of Rs, 123/- at Television Centre, Lahore. The petitioner clahns that despite assurance given by the authorities for the regularization of service of the petitioner, the petitioner was not regularized into service and he has been constrained to move an application to Respondent No, 1 on 14.11.1995, who strongly recommended the case of the petitioner for his regular appointment. It is claimed by the petitioner that during inquiry of the recruitment process in the year 1993 certain demerits, came in light that many of the candidates even not at all possessing the required qualifications were also got appointed by the authorities It is claim of the petitioner that he has been discriminated as other persons had been regularized and the impugned order dated 6.3.1997 is illegal and unlawful which may be declared so, through which services of the petitioner has been terminated.
3. Report and parawise comments have been submitted by the respondents and according to the report it is denied that the petitioner was selected rather it has been stated that the petitioner obtained 71% marks in interview but the last candidate who was appointed against Punjab quota had secured 74% marks. It is also denied that appointments of Associate Engineers were made on the basis if nepotism, favoritism or against the merit. It is claimed in the comments that on the recommendations of the then Minister for information and Broadcasting, the petitioner was appointed as Associate Engineer (Electronics) on daily wages on 8.2.1994 and it was clearly mentioned in his appointment letter that he would not have any claim for regular appointment on the basis of his engagement on daily wages basis. It is also claimed that no assurance was given to him for regularization of his services, at some later stage rather it was mentioned in the order that his services will not be regularized. It is claimed that regularization of services of some contract employees as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition had applied for the post, who were interviewed by the Selection Board and were selected for the post of Associate Engineer (G4). They were offered contract employment on 31.7.1990 and posted at different centers. On dissolution of the Government in August, 1990, they were not allowed to join their duties and offer was withdrawn. However, in compliance with Cabinet's decision dated 20.12.1993 they were restored on 12.5.1994. Later on in September, 1995 in the light of Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division's letter No, 4/2/93/CP/5 dated 8.3.1995, their contractual employment was regularized and case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of the other employees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on 6.2.1994 and was continuously in service of the respondents and has been discriminated as he was not regularized with others who were regularized.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was not appointed on merit basis, but he had been appointed on the recommendation of the then Minister for information and Broadcasting. It is also contended that the employees who were appointed in response to advertisement published in 1989 had been offered contract employment on 31.7.1990, but due to the change of the government in 1990, they were not allowed to join their duties.
However, in compliance with Cabinet's decision dated 20.12.1993, they were restored on ,12.5.1994 and their services have been regularized in pursuance of letter of Establishment Division dated 8.3.1995 and the other employees who have been regularized, their case is distinguishable from the case of the petitioner as he was appointed on daily wages in the year 1994 and not in the year 1993.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents attached with this petition.
7. It is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner had appeared in interview for the post of Associate Engineer (Electronics), which was advertised in the newspaper daily 'DAWN' dated 9.11.1992 and he obtained 71% marks. However, claim of the respondents is that last candidate who was appointed against Punjab quota had secured 74% marks. However, it is not denied that the petitioner approached the then Minister for information and Broadcasting, resultantly the Respondent No, 2 vide order dated 6.2.1994 directed for the appointment of the petitioner as Associate Engineer (Electronics), but only on daily wages at the rate of Rs, 123/- at Television Center, Lahore under the administrative control of Respondent No, 3 and also at the same time Respondent No, 2 directed for the holding of inquiry in the earlier recruitment process which was made in response to the above-said advertisement in which the petitioner was not selected. It is claimed by the petitioner that his services were not regularized till the filing of this petition in spite of the fact that other employees similarly appointed on contract basis in the year 1993 and various categories were regularized and the petitioner from the day one had been making applications for his regularization and treating the petitioner at par with the others whose services have been regularized in spite of the facts that their case was not distinguishable from the case of the petitioner, but through the impugned order dated 6.3.1997 services of the petitioner has been dispensed with. However, the said impugned order was suspended by this Court in W.P. No, 9937 of 1997 on 23.4.1997. In the meanwhile, Section 2-A was inserted into Service Tribunal Act, 1997 and as such the petition filed by the petitioner was abated and was disposed of and the petitioner was directed to approach the Federal Service Tribunal. Consequently, the petitioner filed Appeal No, 258 (L)/1999 along with the stay application whereupon the petitioner was granted stay and the petitioner was in service.
8. The petitioner once again filed another appeal before the Service Tribunal against his termination order which was admitted for regular hearing on 19.4.1999 and the petitioner continued in service as operation of the order dated 28.12.1999 was suspended.
9. Order of the Federal Service Tribunal in favour of the petitioner was presented before respondent for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner as directed, hence, filed this petition.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that other employees who were appointed during the year 1995 as Associate Engineer on contract basis were regularized but the petitioner was continuously deprived of and discriminated having no fault on the part of the petitioner though the direction of the Prima Minister to regularize the services of the contract employees who were appointed on daily wages was not complied with to the extent of the petitioner and he has been discriminated by the respondents in violation of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution. In reply it has been admitted by the respondents that all the employees who were appointed in the year 1989 on contract basis on 31.7.1990 on different centers, but they were not allowed to join duty due to the change of the government and offer was withdrawn in compliance of the Cabinet decision dated 20.12.1993 were restored on 12.5.1994 and the contract employees were regularized while the petitioner has not been regularized. It is also admitted by the respondent that M/s Abdul Samad Khan Pasha and Niamat Ullah did not have required qualification, but they were appointed as Associate Engineers against the Punjab quota and services of Abdul Samad Khan Pasha were regularized. It is admitted by the respondents that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had passed orders for regularization of daily wages employees of PTV of July, 1993 and their services were regularized but the case of the petitioner for regularization was not considered as he was appointed after 31st July, 1993 and he was appointed on 6.2.1994. This is no ground for refusal of the respondents to regularized the services of the petitioner as only the pivotal question in this present case is that the other contract employees had been admittedly regularized on the direction of the Prime Minster, but in spite of that the petitioner has been discriminated only on the ground that he was not appointed before 31st July, 1993 and was appointed on 6.2.1994. This is no ground for the refusal as contract employees in service .of the PTV were to be treated at par with each other and when the other contract employees have been regularized how the respondents could refuse to regularize the services of the petitioner who was to be treated at par with the other contract employees. Even otherwise, the Government of Pakistan has recently promulgated Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance 2009 to provide relief to persons who were appointed in a corporation service or autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies or in Government service during the period from the 1st day of November, 1993 to the 30th day of November, 1996 and were dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from the 1st day of November, 1996 to the 31st day of December, 1998.
11. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of that he does not belong to a specific political party, but he is also citizen of this country and Article 25 of-the Constitution directs the executive authorities that nobody should be discriminated. Hence, action of the respondents for not regularizing the services of the petitioner who was also entitled to the same benefit provided to the other employees similarly placed cannot be upheld. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in the same manner in which the other employees of the contract posts were regularized with back benefits. This petition is accepted with costs.