' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMS!, J.--- This petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against an order dated 18-12-2012 passed by respondent No,2, Commissioner Afghan Refugees Punjab, whereby he had directed respondent No,3, the District Administrator Afghan Refugees Camp Kot Chanda, Mianwali District, for not sending the case of the petitioner and 9 others for renewal of their contract period due to their physical health and working.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this respect is that the petitioners remained on contract service since 2006 after attaining superannuation and they are physically and mentally fit as declared by the Medical Officer, therefore, the direction issued by respondent No,2 to respondent No,3 violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners as guaranteed by the Constitution. It is also the case of the petitioners that a list of 14 such employees was prepared by respondent No,3 but out of those 11 persons were denied right of renewal of their contract whereas proposal of other three persons for renewal was accepted and their contract was extended for another six months.
3. The Federation is represented by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, assisted by Muhammad Usman Ghani, Project Director (Legal), who pointed out that the petitioners are the contract employees with Commissioner Afghan Refugees Punjab as such are not regular employees in the service thus they have no right to say that their contract service may be extended for another term.
While disputing the list of 14 persons, it is the contention of the respondents that only list of 13 persons was prepared out of whom services of two persons were extended on the ground that one Faqir Muhammad had not attained the age of superannuation whereas services of Meer Jan, another contract employee, were extended on the demand of the refugees that is why their names were dropped from the list. It is further submitted that on the vacancy of petitioner No,2 one Hadayat Ullah has been promoted on 1-1-2013, who is now working at his new post.
4. The submissions of the parties have been empathetically considered vis-a-vis available record and it is found that both petitioners were inducted in the office of the Commissioner of Afghan Refugees on contract which was extended after every six months according to the needs and suitability of an employee. In this connection the Commissioner respondent No,2 is the competent authority. The competent authority found the petitioners and others unsuitable for the renewal of their contract period thus asked respondent No,3 not to send their cases for renewal. The position of the contract employees has been settled by now in the various judgments handed down by the apex Court specifically holding that the contract employee has no right whatsoever for his appointment or extension whatever the case may be. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition No,13 of 2013 (Miss Zakia Naurin and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others) decided on 31-12-2012 to say that in the judgment rights of the contract employees have been protected and they were also directed to be regularized in the permanent service. The judgment so referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been examined and it is found that in the judgment it was not held that the contract employees retained in the service after superannuation were entitled for their extension in the term, rather it was the case in which the services of the contract employees were ordered to be regularized in view of the Government policy implemented in the year 2011. That policy in any case is not applicable to the case of the present petitioners as after attaining the age of superannuation they have no right to continue the job till their death. On the other hand, while dealing with the question of rights of the contract employees the Apex Court in the cases of Tehsil Municipal Officer, TMA, Kahuta and another v. Gul Fraz Khan (2013 SCM R 13) and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCM R 120) had candidly settled down the principle that a contract employee cannot be equated vis-a-vis a regular employee connected with the affairs of the Federation. The principle laid down in the afore-noted cases covers the matter in hand disentitling the petitioners for the relief prayed for.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that discriminatory treatment has been given to the petitioners vis-a-vis two employees whose contracts were extended has no legs to stand for the reason that one of those persons had not attained the age of superannuation and his services could be regularized in accordance with the Government policy whereas the other person was kept in service on the public demand. The case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from those persons therefore, the question of mala fide and giving discriminatory treatment in the circumstances is not made out. Moreover, at the place of petitioner No,2 another person has been promoted, who is enjoying his posting. The petitioners thus have failed to make out any case of violation of their fundamental rights as such the petition in hand is not maintainable.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand having no merits is dismissed.