' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.--- Through this single judgment, we propose to dispose of Writ Petitions.Nos.376-D of 2013, 377-D of 2013, 383-D of 2013, 384-D of 2013 and 385-D of 2013 as common question is involved in all the petitions.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petitions are that petitioners in all the writ petitions were appointed against different posts in the office of Superintending Engineer, C&W Circle, D.I.Khan in the month of January, 2013 and after getting medical certificates, they submitted their arrival reports and since then are performing their duties but have not been paid their salaries.
3. The cases were listed for today as the District Accounts Officer, D.I.Khan appeared on the previous date and stated that since no NOC was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, D.I.Khan, therefore, salaries could not be paid to the petitioners. Today the Deputy Commissioner, D.I.Khan appeared before the Court along with record and stated that appointments of the petitioners were made without issuance of NOC from his office, which makes the appointments illegal. He also submitted that employees in surplus pool are waiting for their adjustment, therefore, no NOC can be issued in favour of the petitioners. He was unable to convince the Court that on the strength of which order, he has refused to issue NOC. He, however, admitted that previously such like NOCs were issued from the office of DCO/DC, D.I.Khan and numerous employees, appointed in same fashion, were awarded NOCs and their salaries were released.
4. Representative of District Accounts Office, D.I. Khan, present in Court, was asked to assist the Court on the point that on the basis of which order/policy of government/rules, the requirement of NOC from the DCO/DC was sine qua non for the release of salaries. He was handicapped to assist the Court nor produce any document/order to this effect, rather referred to the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, D.I.Khan on 16-5-2013, wherein the Deputy Commissioner, under the garb of adjustment of surplus pool employees, has restrained the appointing authorities of various offices in D.I.Khan from any appointment without prior issuance of NOC.
5. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Finance Department, vide notification dated 4-7-2013, based upon decision of Provincial Cabinet meeting held in June, 2013, amongst others, also decided that no appointment will be made against vacant posts without NOCs from the Establishment Department where the surplus pool is being maintained. The Deputy Commissioner relied on this notification. The same is prospective in nature and has not been given retrospective effect and it is also the mandate of the Establishment Department and not the Deputy Commissioner, in case where appointment is to be made in future. The Deputy Commissioner has issued the letter on 16-5-2013, prior to the issuance of this notification, without the aid of any lawful authority. It is conceded by the Deputy Commissioner in the Court that previously NOCs were issued and prior to the issuance of notification, DCO had the power, having supervisory jurisdiction, to issue NOC, but after 4-7-2013, as per notification, the Establishment Department has been authorized to do so prior to the appointment. No such order/ notification/government policy is available nor produced by the Deputy Commissioner and representative of the District Accounts Office, D.I. Khan to substantiate their stance that due to the employees in surplus pool, the petitioners would suffer for indefinite period. The petitioners are not at fault in any way. Their appointments are not questioned to have been made in violation of law. They are working since their appointment in January, 2013 without salaries, which is harsh in nature. The record is also silent about any query from the appointing authority of the petitioners to the effect as to whether appointments were made in violation of law or without observing the legal and formal codal formalities, required for appointment. Though there appears no illegality in the appointment of the petitioners, even then, if any irregularity is alleged and based for non-issuance of NOC, the same could not be made as hurdle by the concerned authorities, as the appointment of an employee, if in any case made against the established procedure, would not burden him, rather the appointing authority would be responsible for committing misconduct by making irregular appointments.
Reliance in this respect is placed on the case of Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture, Government of Punjab and others v. Zulfiqar Ali (2006 SCM R 678).
6. For the reasons mentioned above, we accept all the writ petitions and direct the respondents to release the salaries of the petitioners forthwith from the dates of their appointments.