' 1BAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- The learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab representing all the three respondents in his official capacity. However, a request is received on behalf of Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate to adjourn the proceedings of the matter on the ground of his non-availability and when asked as to which respondent is being represe.Nted by the said learned counsel, it was pointed out that the Board of Management in the Hospital is to be represented by Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate. Such Board of Management is not 'a party to the present writ petition. Learned Assistant Advocate General is the Provincial Law Officer and all the three official respondents are to be represented by the said Law officer. Therefore, I deem it proper to decide the petition after hearing the learned Law Officer on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as ECG Technician in District Headquarters Hospital, Rawalpindi in the year 2005 .And continued in such capacity, on contract basis. In the year 2009, in negation of the policy of the Government of the Punjab for extension of such service or regularization thereof, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Some other officials, on contract basis, were also met the same fate. Such termination was challenged by the petitioner by making a representation before the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital, which was never decided and on account of long pendency without any action on such representation, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No,2864 of 2010 before this Court. The other colleagues of the petitioner also filed separate constitutional petitions and Writ Petitions Nos.3413 and 3414 of 2010 from amongst such writ petitions were allowed, whereas, writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 4-4-2011 only on the ground of laches. The findings so arrived at by the learned Single Bench were challenged by the petitioner in Intra Court Appeal No,40 of 2011, which was allowed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 23-5-2011 and when writ petition was allowed, the Respondents were directed to decide the representation already moved by the petitioner within a period of one month. It is on such direction that the Secretary in Health Department, Government of the Punjab, decided a number of representations pending before him and order conveyed on 6-8-2011. The representation of the petitioner was dealt within in Para.No,11 of the said letter, whereby his representation was dismissed.
3. The petitioner after dismissal of his representation has filed present petition and learned counsel representing the petitioner has maintained that the dismissal of representation of the petitioner is based on no reasoning and on the basis of a non-speaking order, the dismissal of the representation has been communicated. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the ICA Bench allowed the writ petition, the petitioner was placed in same position where his other colleagues were placed when their writ petitions were allowed and the respondents were directed to regularize the service of such petitioners by setting aside the orders of termination of services and all such petitioners are presently serving the department on regular basis.
4. While controverting the stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Advocate General has tried to draw a distinction in the case of the petitioners, who have been regularized and that of the present petitioner, which, according to learned Law Officer, did not fulfill the requirements for regularization.
5. This distinction is un-substantiated and un-real to hold against the admitted discrimination. All the similarly placed persons have admittedly been regularized and when in ICA the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, he too attained the same status and deserved to be regularized. The petitioner fulfills the requirements of rules and was also entitled to be regularized in accordance with Regularization Policy. I see no dissimilarity in the case of the petitioner with those, who on the basis of judicial verdict, have been regularized in service.
6.Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed the orders passed by Secretary, Health in Government of the Punjab on 6-8-2011 and that passed by the Additional Medical Superintendent on 29-7-2009 are declared as illegal and without lawful authority as a consequence whereof the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with all back benefits and to be regularized in service in his capacity of what post he was holding at the time of termination of service.