Through this single judgment I intend to dispose of Writ Petition No. 5321 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 5326 of 2010 as common question of law and fact is involved in both these petitions.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioners No. 1 and 2 (in W.P.No. 5321/2010) were appointed as Tube-well Operators in the year 1984 and 1983, respectively while Petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Sewer man on 4.7.1988 in Housing & Town Planning Agency , Jhelum. In Writ Petition No. 5326/2010, Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Driver on 1.3.1982, Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were appointed as Skilled Qulies on 2.6.1984 and 11.7.1984, respectively , in Housing & Town Planning Agency , Rawalpindi. As asserted in the writ petitions, all the petitioners were appointed on work-charge basis in Housing & Town Planning Agency but later on w.e.f 1.1.1995 they were transferred to Tehsil Municipal Administration, Jhelum where they are presentl y serving. It is claimed by the petitioners that they have been rendering services continuously for a long period consisting over more than 22 years without any break but they have not been regularized. They also made representations to the respondents for regularization of their services but of no avail. The petitioners further submitted that services of certain similarly placed employees have been regularized by the respondents in compliance with the orders passed by this Court as well as Islamabad High Court. Through the instant writ petition, they are seeking a direction to the respondents for regularization of their services.
3. The respondents in their report and parawise comments submitted that the petitioners were appointed purely on work-charge basis and their services could not be regularized. It has further been submitted that Petitioner No. 2/Seraj-ul-Munir and Petitioner No. 3/Younas Masih have been retired on attainin g the age of superannuation in December , 2010 and Petitioner No. 1 is still serving.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been serving since 1983 without any break in their, service and as per law they are entitled to be treated as permanent employees by regularization of their services. Learned counsel further contended that services of a large number of work-charge employees have already been regularized by the respondents under orders of this Court and the petitioners are being treated discriminately , which is against the fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. In support of his argument, he has referred to the judgments passed by this Court in W .P. No. 1262/05 and W .P. No. 81 1/2006.
5. The learned AAG as well as learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 have opposed both the writ petitions, on the grounds that work-charge employees are paid on daily basis and they cannot claim regularization of their services.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. Admittedly the petitioners have served the respondent-department for more than two decades without any service break against the posts regarding which nowhere it has ben argued that the same are not of permanent nature. It has also not been denied by the respondents that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed continued for more than nine (9) months. In this view of the matter , the petitioners have attained the status of "workmen" as defined in Standing Order 1(1)(b) of the Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 and they are entitled to regularization of their services. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Director Admin, and Finance, W ASA and others v . Allah Yar and others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 409 ).
8. During the course of arguments the learned AAG as well as the learned counsel representing Respondent No. 4 could not rebut the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that services of certain similarly placed employees have already been regularized under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. A perusal of the copy of the judgments placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners reveals that in the similar circumstances certain employees enjoying the same status of being "work-charge" have been allowed regularization of service.
In this view of the matter the petitioners being at par with them cannot be treated discriminately and refused the identical relief. In forming this opinion, this Court is fortified with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, pronounced in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary , Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCMR 1185) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan: "When Tribunal or Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the Civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other Civil servants who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum."
The above principle is equally applicable to the case of the present petitioners, who are also entitled to the same relief as declining the same would result in discrimination, which is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. As a corollary of the above discussio n, both the afore-noted petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of Petitioner No. 1/Munawar Hussain w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment.
Petitioners No. 2/Seraj-ul-Munir and Petitioner No. 3/Younas Masih, who have already been retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, shall also be deemed to have been regularized from the date of their initial appointments and they will receive such retirement benefits which are admissible to regular employees. The respondents shall comply with this order within a period of one month, under intim ation to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judi.), Rawalpindi Bench of this Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.