' Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan, J.--Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the following relief; "It is therefore humbly prayed that acceptance of amended writ petition, that the order dated 30.12.2015 regarding termination of the services of the petitioners may kindly be declared null and void, against the law and to reinstate the services of the petitioners and also directed the respondents to restore regular office order No, 1037-43 dated 21.6.2007 and to covert the services of the petitioners into regular service of SIDB and also enter their names in the seniority list with all back benefits".
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that initially the present petitioners joined the service of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Small Industries Development Board, Peshawar on different post in the Project called the Leather Goods Service (LGSC), Bannu against the project. The said letter of appointment was withdrawn upon the directives of Board as per its meeting and after the said decision the petitioners continued their services on the previous position being project employee. After completion of the said project 30.6.2010 the concerned staff of the project was served 30 days notice in line with their letter of appointment and on 30.12.2015 their services were terminated, hence the instant writ petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It is admitted on the record that the petitioners are project employees. The moot points before this Court are that whether the petitioners being project employees are excluded from the scope and application of the Act, 2009? Whether the petitioners have been in any manner discriminated by the respondents in the matter of regularization of their services, thus making their respective termination orders illegal? Whether the provisions of the Act of 2009 are applicable to, statutory bodies? It will be useful to reproduce Section 2 (b) of the Act of 2009 containing the definition of "employee" and Section 3 pertaining to the regularization of service of certain employees, which respectively reads; "2(b) 'employee' means an ad hoc or a contract employee appointed by Government or ad hoc or contract basis or second shift/night shift but does not include the employees for project post or appointed on work charge basis or who are paid out of contingencies.
3. Regulation of services of certain employees.- All employees including recommendees of the High Court appointed on contract or ad hoc basis and holding that post on 31th December, 2008 or till the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly appointed or regular basis or having the same qualification and experience for a regular post.
' Provided that the service promotion quota of all service cadres shall not be affected."
' Section 2 (c) of the Act, 2009 further defines the word "Government" as under:-- ' "Government means the Government of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa."
5. From bare perusal of the above provisions of the Act, 2009 would show only ad hoc or contract employees appointed by the Government and it does not cover the employees of project posts or appointed on work charge basis or paid out of contingencies whereas the present petitioners are the employees of a statutory body established in the Act II of 1973. Moreover, they are project employees as evident from the terms of their appointment orders, who services are required for different projects undertaken by the Board, therefore, their cases would not fall within the limited scope of the term "employee" as defined above.
6. Furthermore,. None of the present petitioners has denied the conditions contained in their appointment orders, which clearly demonstrate that all the petitioners are not only contract employees but also project employees of the respondent. Therefore, continuity of their services with the respondent for a period of more than five years will by itself furnish no ground for grant of relief of regularization of their services. The stance taken by the petitioners has already been decided by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through judgment dated 09.12.2015.
7. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.