Through this constitutional petition, petitioner has sought relief in following terms: "It is most therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and the respondents may graciously be directed to regularize services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 08.09.2007 instead of 06.04.2010 by extending him pensionary benefits only , without any back benefits."
2. Petitioner has retired and seeks pensionary benefits, to be reckoned from the date of appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled to regularization of service from the date of appointment i.e. 08.09.2007. Further submits that petitioner was unlawfully discriminated and similarly placed, 203 employees of Lahore Development Authority , were regularized from the date of their joining/initial appointment.
Learned counsel referred to the cases reported as "Ikram Bari and 524 others vs. National Bank'of Pakistan through President and another " (2005 SCMR 100), "Nazir Ahmad vs. Govt. of Punjab through Secretary Transport.
Lahore and others" (2006 PLC (C.S) 237), "Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through General Manager vs. Aneesa Khatoon " (2010 PLC 354), "Muhammad Riaz Mehmood vs. Secretary . Govt. of the Punjab.
Local Government and Community Development and another " (2016 PLC (C.S) 354), "Sher Afzal Khan vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Khyber Pakhatunkhwa. Peshawar and 2 others " (2019 PLC (C.S) 1065 ).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent department controverted the submissions. Submits that petitioner was regularized, w.e.f. 06.04.2010, in terms of Office Order dated 17.11.201 1, which was subjected to certain terms and conditions prescribed. Petitioner agreed to and consented to the terms and conditions, forming part of the regularization of services. He referred to condition 2 (i) of Of fice Order dated 17.1 1.201 1, which reads as;
(i) On their appointment under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules framed there-under , the period of contract appointment shall not be counted for any purpose (pension, gratuity , leave, etc. Learned counsel adds that case of the petitioner was distinguishable from regularized 203 employees, who were appointed as work charge employees. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis under the terms of the Contract Appointment Policy , whose regularization was subject to the conditions agreed. Per learned counsel, the petitioner was otherwise not eligible to pensionary benefits, in lieu of deficient service period, less than requisite 10 years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to judgment reported as "Muhammad Rafiullah and others vs. Zarai T araqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) through President Islamabad and another " (2018 SCMR 598 ).
4. There is no dispute that petitioner was regularized subject to the terms and conditions, which conditions cannot be overlooked while considering the alleged grievance of the petitioner . The regularization was conditional and. the petitioner , once upon acceptance of the conditions, cannot plead contrary thereto. If the argument of the petitioner is accepted then denial of terms and conditions of regularization would disentitle the petitioner from claiming any right, benefit or privilege since 6.4.2010, which would then render him liable to refund all such benefits claimed.
The plea of the petitioner is without any substance and contrary to the principles of acquiescence. No case of discrimination is made out in wake of different classification of the employees. The judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Authority made clear representation at the time of effecting regularization of service of the petitioner , which was accepted along with the conditions prescribed. I was informed that appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. No illegality was committed by the respondents while refusing alleged claim for grant of pensionary benefits. Reference made to the case of Muhammad Rafiullah and others [supra] is apt and the ratio therein is applicable to the facts of this case.
5. In view of above, this petition is without any merit and same is, therefore, dismissed .