' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant constitutional petition under Article-199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have made the following prayers:- ' It is most respectfully prayed that:---
(i) An appropriate writ may kindly be issued.
(ii) The respondents may very kindly be directed to regularize the petitioners' services without causing further delay.
(iii) The writ petition may kindly be accepted with all consequential benefits.
2. Precisely, the petitioners, in the writ petition have mentioned that in pursuance of an advertisement, they being fully qualified and eligible, applied for appointment against the post of Director Engineer (BS-19) and the competent authority after assessing the petitioners eligibility and suitability appointed them on contract basis vide orders dated 13-11-2006, 20-9-2007 and 21-4- 2010 respectively. The Government of Pakistan introduced a Policy dated 29-6-2011 for Regularization of Contract employees working in different departments of the Federal Government.
The petitioners submitted representations dated 24-9-2011 and 18-10-2011 for the regularization of their services and the same were duly forwarded by respondent No,3 to respondent No,2 but the same has not been responded so far. The petitioners have taken the stance that the act of the respondents regarding non-regularization of their services is illegal, unlawful and mala fide, hence, the instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that according to the regularization policy of the Federal Government, all the employees of the Federal Government, without imposing any condition, whatsoever, are entitled for regularization of their services; that according to the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet Sub-Committee held on 29th June, 2011, contract employees who had completed one year of satisfactory service were entitled for regularization of their services, as such, a discriminatory attitude has been adopted towards the petitioners by not regularizing their services on the sole ground that they are above the age of 50 years; that the impugned action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but is also contrary to the provisions of Articles 3, 4, 9, 37 and 38 of the-Constitution of Pakistan, 1973; that non-implementation of the regularization policy and putting an illegal condition of less than 50 years of age for regularization of the contract/daily wages employees amounts to exploitation; that this court in an identical case i,e, in I.C.A. No,263 of 2011 had directed the respondents concerned to consider the cases for regularization of the services of the appellants (in that very Intra Court Appeal); that in the regularization policy of the Federal Government, there is no condition regarding specific age limit for regularization of the services of the contract/daily wages employees; that the petitioners are not project employees and respondent No,3 with ulterior motives has denied the petitioners from the right of regularization of their services and, as such, they have been subjected to a discriminatory treatment which is in sheer violation of Article-25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 2012 SCM R 773, 2006 SCM R 1240, PLD 2010 SC 857, 2003 SCM R 291, 2010 SCM R 431, 1996 SCM R 1185, 2009 SCM R 1 and 2009 PLC (C.S.) (Karachi) 229.
3. Conversely learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3/NHA has argued that the matter regarding regularization of the services of the petitioners was referred to the Cabinet Sub- Committee, constituted by the Federal Government for Regularization of Daily Wages/Contract Employees of Various Ministries/Divisions/Attached Departments/Autonomous Bodies/Organizations etc., however, the Cabinet Sub-Committee had directed for regularization of only those contract employees who had completed one year service on 30-4-2011 and their age was less than 50 years on 30-4-2011, whereas, the ages of the petitioners were above then 50 years on 30-4-2011, therefore, their services could not be-regularized.
4. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has argued that Policy of the Government could not be interfered with, without showing the same to be violative of fundamental rights and that the petitioners through the instant writ petition have not challenged the regularization Policy of the Federal Government; that the services of the petitioners could not be regularized as they do not fall within the ambit of the regularization Policy of the Federal Government. Learned Deputy Attorney- General has relied upon 2011 SCM R 1602, 2011 SCM R 1864 and 2011 CLC 116.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No,3 as well as learned Deputy Attorney-General and perused the documents brought on record.
6. The petitioners, through the instant writ petition have sought issuance of a direction to the respondents for regularization of their services in the light of Regularization Policy of the Federal Government.
7. From the perusal of the "Minutes of the Cabinet Sub-Committee Meeting held on 29th June, 2011 for regularization of Daily Wages/Contract Employees of Various Ministries/ Divisions/Attached Departments/Autonomous Bodies/Organizations etc." circulated vide Government of. Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad's letter dated 7th July, 2011, it is very much evident that a meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee for regularization of daily wages/contract employees of various Ministries/ Divisions/Attached Departments/Autonomous Bodies/ Organizations etc. Was held on 29th June, 2011 at 12-30 p.m. In the Committee Room of Establishment Division. The said Comalittee considered the cases for regularization of services of contract/daily wages employees of different Ministries and Attached Departments. The said Committee while dealing with the contract/daily wages employees of the National Highway Authority (NHA)/respondent No,3 gave the following decision:--- ' Decision:
11. The Committee directed that:--- Contract employees who have completed one year as on 30-4-2011 and fulfill the conditions of qualification, experience prescribed in the rules applicable to NHA employees and their age is less than 50 years on 30-4-2011 may be regularized in a post, cadre or BS on which they were appointed.
As such, I have reached to a conclusion that the petitioners were duly considered for regularization of their services by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, in the light of Regularization Policy of the Federal Government, however, their cases were not recommended for regularization of their services, as per decision of the said Cabinet Sub-Committee, as their ages were not less than 50 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that no decision regarding non-regularization of the services of the petitioners has been made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, rather the same has been made by the National Highway Authority (NHA)/respondent No,3, The stance taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no legs to stand because in para.11 of the Minutes of the Cabinet Sub-Committee held on 29th June, 2011, re-produced above, a specific decision of the committee has been mentioned, hence, by any stretch of imagination, the said decision cannot be termed as a decision of the National Highway Authority (NHA)/ respondent No,3. Moreover, the petitioners are seeking regularization of their services according to the Regularization Policy of the Federal Government but at the same time they deviating from the decision of the Committee i,e, Cabinet Sub-Committee constituted by the Federal Government for the implementation of the said policy of the Federal Government for regularization of the services of the contract/daily wages employees, as such, the petitioners are blowing hot and cold from the same breath because on one hand they are asking for a relief under the Federal Government Policy for regularization of contract/daily wages employees but at the same time they are not ready to accept the decision of Cabinet Sub-Committee constituted by the Federal Government for implementation of the said policy for regularization of contract/daily wages employees by twisting the ground reality that the said decision is not a decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the Federal Government, rather, the same is the decision of National Highway Authority (NHA)/respondent No,3, hence, it can safely be held that the petitioners have taken a hypothetical stance in support of their contentions, It would not be out of place to mention here, that the learned counsel for the petitioners has repeatedly stressed that the decision mentioned in Para-11 of the Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee held on 29th June, 2011 is not a decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee constituted by the Federal Government for implementation of the regularization policy of the Federal Government for regularizing the services of the contract/daily wages employees, rather the same is a decision of NHA/respondent No,3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived and unfounded because the decision mentioned in para-11 of the Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee held on 29th June, 2011, for all intents and purposes, is a decision made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 29th June, 2011.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the petitioners have been subjected to a discriminatory treatment qua the other daily wages/contract employees whose services have been regularized under the Regularization Policy of the Federal Government. However, the petitioners have failed to produce even a single document to show that the services of contract/daily wages employees, having 50 years of age or above than 50 years of age have been regularized under the said Regularization Policy of the Federal Government, as such, this very plea taken by the petitioners also stands repelled.
9. In view of the above perspective, the instant writ petition has no merits. Resultantly the same stands dismissed.