' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J: Petitioners claim to have been working as Pump Operator, Chowkidar, Beldar and Helper in Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad (' the department') on daily wages since their appointments in the years from 1987 to 1997. Their case is that despite their continuous service and making several requests for regularization, nothing has materialized. Finding no other remedy, they have filed this petition praying for regularization of service on the above posts.
2. Respondent No,2/Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Sindh Karachi and respondent No,3/Secretary, Finance Department Government of Sindh Karachi have filed the comment denying entitlement of the petitioners to such relief. According to them, petitioners do not fulfill the criteria laid down in Government's policy issued through a letter dated 10.03.1994, which stipulate regularization of only those work charged/contingent paid employees who have completed five years or more of continuous service on or before 1.7.1994. Since except petitioner No,1 namely Allah Bachayo one among the petitioners was having the required qualification, their requests could not be acceded to.
3. Mr. Muhammad Tufail Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case has referred to C.Ps'Nos.D-650/2007, 801/2007 and 862/2007 and contends that all these petitions filed by the employees of the department for regularization were disposed of only after assurance held out by the department to regularize them; and subsequently they were regularized. Learned counsel also relied upon C.P No,D-742/2010 decided by this court vide order dated 27.7.2010 whereby similarly placed employees of the department were ordered to be regularized. He has further informed that against the said order of this 'court, the Government of Sindh filed a Civil Appeal No,491-K of 2010 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan but it was also dismissed on 20.12.2010. He has lastly contended that the petitioners' case is at par with those employees of the department whose services have been regularized earlier in compliance of the order of this court; hence they may also be treated on the same footings.
3.(sic) Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro learned AAG has strongly opposed the case of the petitioners. He has expressed the view that in terms of circular dated 10.03.1994 the service of only those employees could be regularized who had completed five years of continuous service on or before the cut-off date (01.07.1994) stipulated in the said letter. He has further argued that this petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioners could seek the same remedy by filing a case before the Labour Tribunal. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the cases reported in 2000 SCM R 879 and 2002, SCMR 836.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the material available on record as well as the decision cited at the bar. Insofar as the contention of learned AAG that the petition for the relief as has been sought here is not maintainable before this Court, we tend to disagree with him for the simple reason that the petitioners are seeking equal treatment already meted out to their contemporaries in the department under the aforementioned orders of this court, and have pleaded discrimination in their case in this regard. We have also with respect gone through the case laws relied upon by the learned A.A.G, the facts and circumstances dealt with in those decisions are quite different than the ones being considered here. More so in none of the cases regularization of work charged employees was an issue before the Honourable Supreme Court. We have also considered the contention of learned AAG that in terms of circular dated 10.03.1994 the cut-off date was 01.07.1994 and the services of only those employees could be regularized who had completed five or more years on or before .That date. Such argument palpably is in conflict with the judgment of this Court passed in C.P No,D-742/2010 whereby the cases of colleagues of the petitioners appointed on work charged basis in the year 1986 till 1997, like the petitioners, were considered and the respondents were directed to regularize their services from the date when they had completed five years continuous service. The judgment of this Court has been maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Petition No,491-K of 2010 and learned AAG has not been able to show any single reason as to why we should not follow the dicta laid down therein. It is strange to note that no such ground as has been stressed by learned AAG here for opposing the case of the petitioners was taken by Mr. Abdul Fattah Malik, learned A.G. Sindh before the Honourable Supreme Court. His case there was that the employees were appointed on work charged basis and not entitled to regularization on permanent basis. A perusal of the order passed in the above civil petition dated 20.12.2010 does not reveal either that the Honourable Supreme Court has considered 01.07.1994 as a cut-off date for regularization of work charged employees. The conditions for regularization of such employees appear to be their 5 years uninterrupted service and having valid NICs. In para No,5 of the said order, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as under:- "From the perusal of the record it appears that by an administrative order dated 10.03.1994, which was issued with the approval of the competent authority, all the departments and offices were directed to regularize the work charged/contingent paid employees, who have rendered five years' continuous service and holding valid NICs. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents have not rendered more than five years' service and are not holding valid NICs."
5. We have also had a glance over a circular dated 10.03.1994 heavily relied upon by learned A.A.G to oppose the case of petitioners, it does not even remotely suggest that 1.7.1994 is to be considered as a cut-off date for the contingent employees having 5 years of service to seek regularization. It merely denotes that regularization of the verified employees was to be effected from 1.7.1994 and for such verification a Committee was constituted which was tasked to submit the list of eligible workers to Finance Department who had rendered five years or more continuous service and were in possession of valid NICs. Mr. Abdul Nisar Soomro, Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Tando Allahyar, who is present along with Manohar Kumar, XEN Public Health Engineering, Tando Allahyar, has confirmed that the petitioners are continuously performing their duties since the date of their .Appointments (from 1987 to 1997), he has not raised any doubt either over the identification of any of the petitioner to be employee of the department. Although learned AAG has strongly opposed the case of the petitioners for regularization but has not been able to show as to why the petitioners, who are low paid work charged employees and are in continuous service, have not been provided the same benefit, in terms of the Government policy contained in letter dated 10.03.1994, already extended to similarly placed employees. Learned A.A.G and the officials present do not deny either that previously the contingent/work charged employees of the department have been regularized in compliance of decisions of this Court. We are of the view that when this court has already decided a point of law in respect of other similarly placed employees of the department, the department ought to have taken into consideration the case of other employees including the petitioners as well who due to some reasons could not take any legal proceedings to seek their right. For obvious reason, the rule of good governance would demand that the benefit of decision of this Court ought to have been extended to other employees of the department, who were not party to the earlier litigation, instead of compelling them to approach this Court for the same relief, 'which has already been extended by this Court to other employees.
We have not been informed that the case of the petitioners was placed before the Committee for scrutiny in terms of the policy contained in letter dated 10.03.1994, or if so, whether any decision in this regard was made or not.
6. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that petitioners are entitled to the equal treatment meted out already to the petitioners in C.P No,D-742/2010.
Accordingly, we allow the petition with the directions to the respondents to regularize, within 4 weeks from today viz. 22.03.2016, services of the petitioners from the date when they completed their five years continuous service and submit such compliance report through Additional Registrar of this Court.