MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. -- This consolidated order shall also dispose of following connected appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases:---(1) ICA No. 19805 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture Department& another v. Usman Ali & others.
(2) ICA No. 19807 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Hafeez Ullah & others.
(3) ICA No. 19809 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture Department & another v. Syed Qaiser Abbas Shah & others.
(4) ICA No. 19810 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v. Sohail Jafar Bhutta & others.
(5 ) ICA No. 19812 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture Department & another v. Hassan Abbas Shah & others.
(6) ICA No. 19815 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Muhammad Iftikhar & others.
(7) ICA No. 19817 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Noor Muhammad & others .
(8) ICA No. 19822 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Naseer Ahmad & others.
(9) ICA No. 19824 of 2019 , titled Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department & another v. Sved Muhammad T auseef-ul-Hassan & others.
(10) ICA No. 19830 of 2019 , titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Shahzad Noor & others.
(11) ICA No. 19832 of 2019 , titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Muhammad Imran & others.
(12) ICA No, 19835 of 2019 , titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Muhammad imran Iqbal &others.
(13) ICA 1 No. 19837 of 2019, titled . Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another or , Muhammad Javaid Abbas & them.
(14) ICA No 19838 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Mazhar Hussain & others.
(15) ICA No. 19840 of 2019 , titled Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department & another v. Nasir .
Abbas & others.
(16) ICA No. 19841 of 2019 , titled Province of Punjab , through Secretary Agriculture Department & another v.
Nazeer Ahmad & others.
(17) ICA No. 19844 of 2019 , titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Nauman Ayub & others.
(18) ICA No. 19846 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Aas Muhammad & others.
(19) ICA No. 19847 of 2019, titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v.
Muhammad Imtiaz & others.
(20) ICA No. 19849 of 2019 titled Province of Punjab through Secretary , Agriculture Department & another v Muhammad Nawaz & others.
2. Through instant appeal, appellant-department has assailed order dated 23.01.2019, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petitions filed by respondents were disposed of with direction to regularize their services in accordance with law/case-law, without any discrimination, keeping in view the nature and length of service based on their performance, on individual basis.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that respondents were working on project posts, which were temporary in nature, therefore, direction for regularization of their services, passed by learned Single Judge, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The report and parawise comments, furnished by appellant-department, before learned Single Judge. show background, history and factual as well as legal position of the matter. According to .which, respondents were appointed against different posts in a development project on contract basis in July,'2012 for a period of three years, which was later on extended uptill 30.06.2017. The said project was later on approved upto 30.06.2021, however, services of certain contract employees were not extended/regularized. At the end of the comments, it was assured by appellant-department, to proceed with the cases of respondents in terms of the Punjab Regularization of Services Act, 2018 ("Act of 2018").
6. Section 3 of the Act of 2018 provides that any, person appointed on contract basis, before announcement of the Act, shall be deemed to have been validly appointed, which also includes the extension of the contracts. It has been provided that a contract employee having not less than four years' service shall be eligible to be considered for appointment on regular basis. For facility of reference, Section 3 is reproduced below:-- "3. Regularization, etc.-- (1) Notwithstanding the node or manner of appointment, or any deficiency or defect in the procedure or anything contained in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (VIII of 1974), the rules framed thereunder or any recruitment policies, any person appointed on contract, immediately before the commencement of the Act, shall be deemed to have been validly appointed and such appointment shall not be called in question."
7. Procedure for regularization of contract employees has been narrated in Section 4 of the Act of 2018 and Section 5 provides that scrutiny committees shall be constituted to consider cases of contract employees for regularization. Section 5 reads as under--; "5. Scrutiny Committees.-- (1) The appointing authority shall consti tute one or more Scrutiny Committees for purposes of the Act.
(2) A Scrutiny Committee shall scrutinize the academic record and other relev ant documents of the contract employees and verify that the contract employee is eligible and qualified for regularization.
(3) The Scrutiny Committee shall forward its recommendations to the appointing authority ."
8. Perusal of record shows that respondents have been working with appellant-department on development project on contract basis for the last many years and by efflux of time, ex-facie, they have attained status of permanent/regular employees. Needless to say that on account of long continuation in service, respondents- employees earn a presumption that they had been performing services of perma nent nature. Reference can be made to Board of intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan v. Muhammad Sajid (2019 SCMR 233), Abdul Ghafoor v. The President, Natio nal Bank of Pakistan (2018 SCMR 157), Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, D.G. Khan v. Muhammad Altaf (2018 SCMR 325) and State Oil Company Limited v.
Bakht Siddique (2018 SCMR 1 181).
9. Learned Single Judge, after appreciating the factual as well as legal position and case-law on the subject, has rightly directed the appellant-department to regularize the services of respondents, with the following observations:- -- "10. Keeping in view the above, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No. I to regularize the petitioners in terms of the said Act while being guided by the above case-law without observing any discrimination and by adopting an objective criteria keeping in view the nature and length of service based on their performance, on individual basis. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today and a compliance report in this behalf shall be submitted before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court."
10. Undeniably, services of some of the similarly placed employees have been retained by the appellant-department and respondents have been subjected to gross discrimination in the matter. Hon'ble apex Court, in a number of judgments, has repeatedly ruled that similarly placed employees cannot be discriminated against. We have noted that learned Single Judge, after appreciating the entire case- law, came to the conclusion that appellant-department has failed to point out that the posts held by respondents were not permanent in nature. Even otherwise, it has been held that appellant-department shall adopt an objective criteria keeping in view the nature/length of service based and performance of individual case. In our opinion, impugned findings are in conformity with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture and others v. Adnanullah [2017 PLC (C.S.) 307].
11. Learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of appellant-department has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order , hence, no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction is warranted under the law.
12. In view of above, this appeal, alongwith all the connected appeals, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.