' The instant petition has been filed with the following prayer(s);
(a) To declare the act of respondent No.2 to issue verbal orders regarding terminating the services of petitioners as illegal, unlawful, null and void and based on mala fides.
(b) To declare the petitioners are entitled to be confirmed/ regularized on the posts on which they are serving and act of recruiting fresh candidates for the alleged petitioner's posts is illegal and unlawful.
(c) To grant ad-interim injunction thereby restraining the respondents to temporary or regular recruiting fresh candidates for the posts on which the petitioners are already working till deciding the fate of the petitioners.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners claim themselves to be the employees of GMMC, Sukkur. It is stated that they were appointed in the said Medical College and thereafter through verbal orders their services were terminated and hence, being left with no option they filed the instant petition.
3. Mr. Suhail Ahmed Khoso Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis on verbal orders and they were paid wages for some months and thereafter through a verbal order their services were terminated. He states that petitioners are poor persons and they were deprived of their fundamental rights by not regularizing them and not giving them their due salaries. He submitted that it is admitted by the respondents that they will accommodate the petitioners as and when any posts are available or vacant but even after passage of substantial time, the petitioners have not been accommodated rather some blue eyed persons , having political influence, were appointed. The learned Counsel has placed on record an order No.GMMMC/Suk/3273-81 dated 23-8-2013 wherein one person namely Abdul Qadir son of Allah Wasayo Kathor was allowed to perform duty in ENT Department of the said hospital. He states that a discrimination has been made with the petitioners which is violation of Article 25 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Hence, according to him the petitioners may be inducted in service and this petition may be allowed. Learned Counsel has relied upon a decision given by honourable Supreme Court in the case reported in 2010 SCM R 253 (Pakistan Telecommunication v. Muhammad Zahid) and also placed reliance on an unreported order passed in Constitutional Petition No.D-72/2011 Re-Muhammad Ali v. P.O Sindh and others.
4. Nobody is in attendance on behalf of the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4, however, their comments are available on record.
5. Learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has placed reliance on the comments filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis. He further stated that the petition is not maintainable as petitioners have failed to furnish their appointment orders or the letters through which their services were extended after the expiry of contract period, if any. He submitted that on this score alone this petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have approached the Court without having any documentary evidence in support of their claim that they were appointed on daily wages basis by the respondents Nos.2 to 4. In the alternative the learned A.A.-G. Submitted that perusal of the comments of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 would reveal that if for arguments sake it is admitted that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and subsequently their services were terminated, after the contract period they have no locus standi to either file a petition or to claim fundamental rights. While elaborating his view point the learned A.A.-G.
Submitted that petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis and not against any permanent post and they were not even appointed on contract basis. According to him they were appointed on daily wages basis and were paid accordingly for the period they served the respondent.
According to him when their services were no more required they were laid off, hence nothing illegal has been committed by the respondents. He states that even otherwise as per Sindh Regularization Act, 2013 regularization could not be given to employees working on daily wages basis. In support of his above contentions the learned A.A.-G. Has relied upon the decision reported in 2008 SCM R 314 (Syed Arshad Ali v. Pakistan Telecommunication).
6. We have heard both the learned Counsel at considerable length and have perused the record and the comments filed by the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4, and the decisions relied upon by them.
There is no denial to the fact that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis. There is also no denial to the fact that the petitioners have failed to furnish even a single document about their appointment, which is claimed to be on verbal basis. It is also admitted position that the petitioners have also failed to produce any evidence with regard to their termination, which is also claimed to be on verbal basis. It has now become a settled proposition of law that the person working on daily wages basis could not claim regularization until and unless they are appointed either on contract basis or on permanent basis by the concerned authorities. The respondents have duly mentioned the period for which the petitioners have worked and have also mentioned that after the said period their assignment was not extended. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has conceded before us that the petitioners have not worked with the respondents after the said period and they only worked for the period for which they were duly compensated. A complete list has been provided by the respondents by way of annexure-I page-7 on their parawise comments duly mentioning the total period of working of the each petitioner which varies from two months 06 days to one year 12 days respectively. It is also a matter of record that since the job assigned to the petitioners were purely for the employees working on daily wages basis, hence the question of their regularization, until and unless the nature of the posts are considered to be that important which requires regularization, could not be considered. It is also admitted that at the time of appointment the petitioners were duly apprised that their appointment is on daily wages basis and not on any permanent sanctioned post and thereafter the petitioners joined the said services on daily wages basis. It is seen from the comments filed by the respondents that they have categorically mentioned that no fresh person will be appointed in place of the petitioner and in case any post is created and becomes vacant the petitioners will be given preference, subject to their fulfilment of eligibility and formalities under the relevant rules.
' We therefore, in view of the above admitted position dismiss this petition. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is found to distinguishable from facts of the present petition. However, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are directed that if any post lies vacant on which the petitioners have worked on daily wages or if any post is created for the said job they would give preference to the petitioners for appointment on the said post subject to fulfilment of other legal and codal formalities.