AHMAD ALI. J. This common judgment shall also decide the following writ petitions having similar facts and prayers (mentioned below against each) for redressal of their grievance: -
1. WP No. 336-A/2013.
Prayer: On acceptance of this writ the respondents may graciously be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in accordance with law, constitution and judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the order of transfer dated: 10.04.2013 following by issuing show cause notice dated: 15.04.2013 may also graciously be declared as without jurisdiction and having no legal effect.
2. WP No. 6-A/2018.
Prayer: On acceptance of the instant writ petition, respondents may be directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments on contract basis in NBP through outsource company on the analogy of cases already decided in favour of some similar employee vide judgment of this Honourable Court dated: 22.05.2014 in writ petitions No. 72-A/2014, 73-A/20 14, 452-M/2014 and judgment dated: 07.08.2017 in writ petition No. 590-A/2014. Respondents may further be directed that all service back benefits be granted to the petitioners as well.
3. WP No. 684-A/2018.
Prayer: On acceptance of the instant writ petition, respondents may be directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments on contract basis in NBP through outsource company on the analogy of cases already decided in favour of some similar employees vide judgment of this Honourable Court dated: 22.05.2014 in writ petitions No. 72-A/2014, 73-A/20 14, 69-A/2014 and 452-M/2014 as well as precedent case law of august supreme Court of Pakistan reported 2009 SCMR 1 and respondent may further be directed that all service back benefits be granted to the petitioners as well.
4. WP No. 878-A/2018.
Prayer: It is therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the impugned letter of termination dated: 19.07.2018 issued by respondent No. 4 may graciously be set-aside being null and void and respondents be directed not to take any adverse action against the petitioner under the garb of said impugned letter any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may please be granted to the petitioner .
5. WP No. 880-A/2018.
Prayer: On acceptance of the instant writ petition, respondents may be directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments on contract basis in NBP through outsource company on the analogy of cases already decided in favour of some similar employee vide judgment of this Honourable Court dated: 22.05.2014 in writ petitions No. 72-A/2014, 73-A/20 14, 452-M/2014 and judgment dated: 07.08.2017 in writ petition No. 590-A/2014. Respondents may further be directed that all service back benefits be granted to the petitioners as well.
6. WP No. 1282-A/2018 Prayer: On acceptance of the instant writ petition, respondents may be directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments on contract in NBP through outsource company on the analogy of cases already decided in favour of some similar employees vide judgment of this Honourable Court dated: 22.05.2014 in writ petitio ns No. 72-A/2014, 73-A/2014, 69-A/2014 and 452-M/2014 as well as precedent case law of august supreme Court of Pakistan reported 2009 SCMR-I and respondent may further be directed that all service back benefits be granted to the petitioners as well.
7. WP No. 31-A/2019.
Prayer: On acceptance of the instant writ petition, respondents may be directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments on contract on the analogy of cases already decided in favour of some similar employees vide judgment of this Honourable Court dated: 22.05.2014 in writ petitions No.452-M/2014 and judgment dated: 07.08.2017 in WP No. 590-A/201 4. Respondent may further be directed that all service back benefits be granted to the petitioners as well.
8. WP No. 391-A/2019.
Prayer: On acceptance of the instant writ petition, respondents may be directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments on contract basis in NBP through outsource company on the analogy of cases already decided in favour of some similar employees vide judgment of this Honourable Court dated: 22.05.2014 in writ petitions No. 72-A/2014, 73-A/20 14, 69-A/2014 and 452-M/2014 as well as precedent case law of august supreme Court of Pakistan reported 2009 SCMR I and respondent may further be directed that all service back benefits be granted to the petitioners as well.
9. WP No. 942-A/2018.
Prayer: On acceptance of the instant writ petition, respondents may be directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments on contract basis in NBP through outsource company on the analogy of cases already decided in favour of some similar employees vide judgment of this Honourable Court dated: 22.05.2014 in writ petitions No. 72-A/2014, 73-A/20 14, 69-A/2014 and 452-M/2014 and judgment dated: 07.08.2017 in WP No. 590-A/2014.
Respondent may further be directed that all service back benefits be granted to the petitioners as well.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the writ petitions are that the petitioners are employe es of the respondents/National Bank of Pakistan, who were appointed on temporary/contract basis by hiring services of different companies i.e ICON Consultant, Professional Employee s Private Limited and Bulls and Bulls etc. It is the stance of the petitioners that they are serving under the direct administrative control of respondent-bank and their salaries are being paid by the bank. That other matters i.e disciplinary , leave grant, transfers and postings are also administratively controlled by the bank, besides, the petitioners are working in various categories. That they should be regularized by the respondents/National Bank of Pakistan, as services of number of other similar placed workers/employees have already been regularized but the petitioners have been deprived of their legal rights. That they approached the respondents time and again for the purpose but in vain, hence, the instant writ petitions.
2. Respondents were put on notice to file their comments, which they have filed. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners heard. Learned Assistant Attorney General as well as learned counsel for respondents/Bank also argued the cases in depth by strongly opposing the contentions of learned counsel for petitioners.
3. Alongwith other submissions, it was the main stance of the learned counsels for petitioners that petitioners are being discriminated as they are not being treated with other similar placed employees whose services have already been regularized by the respondents/National Bank of Pakistan. Further submitted that some of petitioners have been terminated during pendency of present writ petitions.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that services of the petitioners were obtained purely on temporary/contract basis, so they cannot claim their regularization, as they have agreed to the terms and condition of their respective services. Further argued that due to financial constraints, respondent/bank is not in a position to regularize them.
5. Petitioners have filed present writ petition praying therein for regularization of their services from the date of appointment in the respondent-Bank on the analogy of similarly placed employees whose services were already regularized by the respondent-bank.
6. Perusal of record revels that the petitio ners are performing their duties, on different positions in the respondent- Bank since their appointments, though, on the basis of contracts, but without any break or discontinuation.
7. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent-Bank is being benefitted from the labour' blood and sweat of the petitioners since their appointments and the services being rendered by them to the respondent-Bank have also been recognized in the comments. No doubt, such services of the petitioners have contributed a lot towards the prosperity and progress of the respondent-Bank which neither has been denied nor can be denied by management of the respondent-Bank, but still they are not being considered for regularization. Keeping the petitioners as part- timers for indefinite period for a very meager payment is a forced labour , which is in sheer violation of their Constitutional rights, definitely , accrued to them.
8. Even otherwise, the apex Court while dealing with a matter of similarly placed persons in a case titled "Abdul Ghafoor and others Vs The President, National Bank of Pakistan etc" reported as 2018 SCMR 157, has held that: "There is no denying the fact that the petitioners were rendering janitorial services in the various offices and branches of the respondent-bank for the last several years, and on the basis of contract executed directly between them and the respondent-bank for different spans of 11 months, from time to time. The services they rendered are such that tit hardly need any emphasis to say that the work performed by the petitioner is surely of a permanent nature. Earlier the bank attempted to avoid giving permanence to the job rendered by its low paid employees by engaging them through contractors but having failed in their bid before this Court in Civil Appeal No.1549 of 2014 (National Bank of Pakistan and another Vs Talimand and others) , where this Court declined to uphold the contention of the appellant-bank, to deny permanence to the services of its workers, on the pretext of their being employed through a contractor , and thus upholding the judgment of the learned High Court, ordering regularization of the services of such workers, has now devised an innovation of acquiring the services of workers like cleaner , messengers and/or janitors, by calling such engagement/ employment a "contract". Although like any other employee or worker , these so called contractor are themselves rendering manual services for the bank, for petty monthly compensation, neither are they supplying any manpower nor any goods to the bank, or/are getting any job done by acquiring and/or engaging the services of others, and thus clearly do not fall within the definition or category of contractors, the so called contractors, as noted earlier , are manual workers, they are also not being paid on item to item and/or project basis. The so called contract is therefore, of no avail to the bank in avoiding regularization of the services of the petitioners, and to deny to them the right to livelihood, this Court cannot allow this fundamental right of the petitioners, to remain susceptible to the whims and caprice of the respondents."
9. Moreover , it is now well established that right to life as envisaged by Article 9 of the Constitution, includes the right to livelihood, therefore, same cann ot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority . Certainly , it shall unmistakably be permissible that the employment of an employee can be brought to an end, but obviously in accordance with law, whereas in prese nt case, there was/is no justification for not making their employment permanent, and for keeping their entire career , rather livelihood exposed and susceptible to the whims of the authorities, which also hurts the dignity of the petitioners. Reliance can be safely placed on case titled "Pir Imran Sajid & others Vs Managing Director/General Manager (Manager Finance), Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others" reported in 2015 SCMR 1257 , wherein it has also been held by the apex Court that; "11. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the whole edifice of governance of the society has it genesis in the Constitution and laws aimed at to establish an order , inter alia, ensuring the provisions of socio-economic justice, so that the people may have guarantee and sense of being treated in accordance with law that they are not being deprived of their due rights. Provision of Article 4 embodies the concept of equality before law and equal protection of law and save citizens from arbitrary/ discriminatory law and actions by the Government authorities. Article 5(2) commands that everybody is bound to obey the command of the Constitution, Every public functionary is supposed to function in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of its power so that persons concerned should be treated in accordance with law as guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution. It would include principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and procedural propriety . The action which is malafide or colourable is not regarded as action in accordance with law. While discharging official functions, efforts should be made to ensure that no one is prevented from earning his livelihood because of unfair and discriminatory act on their part.
It is now well laid down that the object of good governance cannot be achieved by exercising Discretionary powers unreasonably or arbitrarily and without application of mind but objective can be achieved by following the rules of justness, fairness, and openness in consonance with the command of the Constitution enshrined in different articles including Article 4 and 25. The obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authority has been evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of the justice."
10. Perusal of the record also reveals that the status of the petitioners as depicted from the averments made in the writ petitions and the comments submitted by the respondents, is almost identical to those employees whose cases were allowed by the apex Court in the following authorities: 1996 SCMR 1185, 2005 SCMR 100, 2005 SCMR 499, 2009 SCMR 01, PLD 2011 SC 22, 2013 SCMR 1253 , 2018 PLC (C.S) 383, 2018 SCMR 1 181, 2018 SCMR 1405 , 2018 SCMR 157 & AIR 1987 SC 777.
11. Even otherwise, when the dispute/matter is settled once for all, then respondents are supposed to treat its similarly placed employees on same footing without compelling them to approach the Courts of law for their genuine rights in the shape of unnecessary litigation. The case of present petitioners squarely falls within the ambit/parameters defined and dilated upon by apex Court as well as by this Court. Accordingly , the respondents, by no way, can be allowed to discriminate the petitioners in sheer violation of the judgments referred to above. We, thus, while extending benefit of the above referred judgments to the petitioners, allow the instant and all connected petitions with directions to the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners against their respective posts with effect from the date when they approached this Court through their writ petitio ns, but, for their pensionary and other long term benefits, if any, available under the law, they would be entitled from the date, when they had joined the service/s of the respondent-bank i.e. their initial appointments.
12. It is added that petitioner No.8 (Muhammad Anwar Khan) of writ petition No. 880-A/2018 has alrea dy tendered his resignation, which was also accepted , therefore, he cannot claim benefit of same, therefore, to his extent the above writ petition is dismissed.
13. Moreover , as it was pointed out during the course of arguments that petitioner No.2 (Zahir Shah) of instant Writ Petition i.e No. 336-A/2013 has been died during the pendency of this writ petition, therefore, to his extent the writ petition has become infructuous, hence, stands dismissed.
CM No. 254-A/2018 in WP No. 880-A/2018 . During the pendency of WP No. 880- A/2018, the applicants Aamir Ali Shah & five others have filed an application for their impleadment as petitioners, which was not disposed of.
As, the above applicants are similar janitorial employees of respondent/bank, therefore, this application is allowed.
Office is directed to make necessary entries in the petition as well as in the relev ant record with red ink and they are also entitled to the same relief as granted to other petitioners of above writ petition (WP No. 880-A/2018).