' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J. --- It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that the learned High Court has erroneously held that the appellants are not covered by the provisions of the Sacked Employees (Recruitment) Act, 2010 and that they were contract employees of the Project. He further contended that the appellants were employees of the WAPDA and irrespective of the fact that the Project was completed, they continued to be the employees of the WAPDA and, therefore, their services could not have been terminated on this score alone. As against this, the learned counsel representing the respondent-WAPDA has contended that the issue raised in this appeal is fully covered by the judgment of the Court in the case reported as Anwar Ali Sahto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 101), wherein it has been held that "the contractual appointments of the appellants could not be transformed into regular appointments". He has further contended that the appellants were employed on contract basis in a foreign funded Project and their contracts had been extended time and again till the finalization of the Project and therefore, after the completion of the Project, the appellants did not have any right to continue in the services of the organization.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appointment letter dated 27.3.1995 spells out the status of the appellants. It is mentioned in the appointment letter that the appellants shall be employed on contract basis and shall have no right to claim regular absorption in the WAPDA. It was further provided that the terms and conditions of the appellants would be governed by the Contract. This clear distinction creates a separate category of the appellants who have been shown to be employed on contract in the Project and extension in their contract period during the completion process of the Project does not give them any right to claim regularization in the WAPDA. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has been duly answered in the judgment of this Court in the case of Anwar Ali Sahto (supra). We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court which could warrant interference by this Court.