' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.--- These are two writ petitions, the one filed by Maqbool Ahmad (Writ Petition No,1547 of 2011) and the other filed by Tariq Mehmood (Writ Petition No,1552 of 2011) against the orders of their termination from service on the grounds that they being not Project Employees could not have been terminated from service without due course of law and that they were required to be regularized in the Department on the basis of the judgments of this Court as well as of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in the cases of their colleagues employees, who have already been adjusted, absorbed, regularized; hence it would be a discrimination if the petitioners being similarly placed are not treated at par with them.
2. As the points raised for adjudication in both the writ petitions are one and the same, therefore, we propose to dispose of the same through this single judgment in Writ Petition No,1547 of 2011.
2-A. Brief facts of the case are that certain posts of Assistant Directors in the Provincial Urban Development Board, N.-W-F.P. were advertised in the news papers on 24-1-1990 in various disciplines for which the petitioners also applied. They were selected and appointed on temporary basis. Subsequently, their services were terminated on 3-1-1991 but they were re-appointed on 28- 8-1991 in the Project Management Unit, SUDP, Provincial Urban Development Board N.-W.F.P. They were then directed to assume their new assignment in the Shelter Project whereafter they were placed at the disposal of Local Government and Rural Development Department on deputation basis to work in the Community Infrastructure Project, The Community Infrastructure Project was wound up and the services of petitioner along with others were terminated vide letter dated 30-6- 2003. The petitioners filed representations/appeals against their termination orders and subsequently filed Writ Petitions Nos.3768 and 3769 of 2010 before this Court. The said writ petitions came up for hearing, before a learned Division Bench of this Court on 24-11-2010 wherein it was realized that the representations filed by petitioners before the Departmental authority have not been decided one way or the other. Hence the respondents were directed to decide the representations of petitioners after hearing them within a month. The representations of petitioners were, however, rejected by the departmental authority and now the petitioners have questioned the same through instant writ petitions.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.A.-G. on pre-admission notice. Record of the case was also perused.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the case of petitioners is not on equal footings to the cases of those employees who had filed writ petitions before this Court. In fact, about 20 employees were initially terminated from service vide order dated 3-1-1991, which also included the names of Muhammad Arshad and Ashraf Qadir Khattak besides the names of petitioners. The said Ashraf Qadir Khattak and Muhammad Arshad questioned their termination from service by filing writ petitions before this Court, Annexure: P with the instant petition is the judgment/order of this Court in Writ Petition No,1236 of 1991, decided on 30-9-1991 filed by Ashraf Qadir Khattak with the following prayers:--- "(i) To declare order of respondent No,2 issued vide his endorsement No,1-09-01/1094-104 dated 13-1-1991 as discriminatory, illegal, derogatory to all constitutional guarantees, as without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and as such of no consequence whatsoever and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner;
(ii) to further declare that the petitioner is lawful Assistant Director (Technical) BPS-17 under respondents Nos.1 and 2 and as such entitled to the disbursement of all the pay and allowances appurtenant to the post since the date of the termination to date;
(iii) to grant any other relief deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case by this Honourable Court."
' The above writ petition was decided with the following concluding para:-- - "For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to reliefs (i) and (ii) ante. Nonetheless, in view of assurance by the Chairman of P.U.D.B and almost unanimous resolution of the Provincial Assembly, we are inclined to issue a writ of certiorari and direct the respondents to refrain from recruitment of new Assistant Directors unless the petitioner is absorbed against one of the vacancies falling in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering."
' Similarly, the other employees also filed writ petitions before this Court which were decided on 30- 9-1999 through a consolidated judgment in Writ Petition No,880 of 1995 by adopting the ratio decidendi of decided cases of Ashraf Qadir Khattak and Muhammad Arshaci as well as the decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P No,148-P of 1991 by issuing a writ of certiorari directing the respondents to refrain from fresh recruitment without considering the petitioners for appointment on available vacancies on merits and in P.M.U. to deal their cases on the basis of last come first go. The above decision was challenged before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos.1752, 1753, 509-P of 1991 and Civil Petition. No,6-P of 2000, which were decided in the following terms:-- "Resultantly, in order to avoid protracted litigation between the parties and in the interest of expeditious disposal of cases we are inclined to direct the Department to reconsider the facts of the cases of the petitioners in juxtaposition with the cases of 29 Assistant Directors whose details are available in "Mark A" in the light of the observations made above within three months from today."
5. It was in this background of the case of those terminated employees that they were accommodated from time to time as and when vacancies fell vacant.
6. The case of petitioners is distinguishable from the cases of those employees in the sense that when the first order of termination was passed, those employees preferred to seek their legal remedy before the proper forums whereas the petitioners did not opt to avail the same, rather they accepted their new appointment in the department where they served for a sufficient long period and on winding up of the Project their services were terminated through the impugned order. Thus we see no discrimination on this count to have been made to the petitioners.
7. The order of re-appointment of petitioners in the Provincial Urban Development Board would clearly suggest that they were offered the posts of Assistant Directors in Project Management Unit, SUDP, where they worked as such in various Projects. When the Provincial Urban Development Board was made defunct, seniority list of the employees was made in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos.1752 and 1753 of 1999, which was confirmed by this Court in its judgment in Writ Petition No,1333 of 2001 wherein names of petitioners are not mentioned. If the petitioners considered themselves as employees of the defunct PUDB, they were required to seek remedy for redressal of their grievance and inclusion of their names in the Seniority List. Similarly, the petitioners did not question their first termination order as at that time they were reappointed and working in the Community Infrastructure Project under the LG&RDD. This fact has even been admitted by the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Director (Civil) in the Project Management Unit, SUDP. In the circumstances, when in the defunct PUDB Service Rules, there is no provision for adjustment/absorption and appointment of a project employee, then the respondents cannot be directed to treat the petitioners as regular employees of PUDB as their initial appointment in the PUDB was for a Project and on winding up of the same their services have come to an end.
8. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions being without substance are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.