ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- This order shall dispose, of W.P. No. 40557-2017 titled "Lal Khan etc. Vs. Govt. of Punjab etc." W.P. No. 40664-2017 titled "Jahanzaib Khalid, etc. Vs. Govt. of Punjab, etc." W.P. No. 54191-2017 titled "Nasar Iqbal, etc. Vs. Govt. of Punjab, etc." W.P. No. 54194-2017 titled "Muhammad Munir etc. Vs. Govt. of Punjab etc." W.P. No. 203806-2018 titled "Siraj Ahmad, etc. Vs. Province of Punjab, etc.", W.Ps Na. 138- 2017 titled "Ghulam Murtaza Vs. Secretary Agriculture, etc." and W.P. No. 151667-2018 titled "Esub Khan, etc. Vs. Province of Punjab, etc.", since common questions of law and fact are involved as all the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to regularize their respective services and to release their salaries as they have been serving the department for a longer period.
2. The admitted common facts are that the petitioners were occupying different posts of Supervisors, Computer Operators and Rodman who were appointed on contract basis in the responde nt-department against the said vacant posts advertised/published in the newspapers under the National Program for Improvement of Watercourses in (the Punjab Component) through District Recruitment Committee. Ever since they continued to perform their duties to the entire satisfaction of the respondent and with unblemished record without any break while performing the functions of permanent nature though the project was rename d from time to time. In the month of November , 2017 the salaries of the petitioners were stopped and a list was prepared to pick and choose amongst the employees and on 06.11.2017 some employees were allowed to continue their jobs by extending their employment period. On 22.09.2017 the posts were advertised in the newspaper and, according to the petitioners it was written on the wall that they would be filled up ignoring the petitioners who have been serving the department for more than 12 years. The case of the petitioners is that in other provinces like KPK, Sindh and Balochistan, the similarly placed persons have already been regularized, hence they pray for their regularization as well.
3. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No. 2/Director General Agriculture Water Management, it was stated that the petitioners were appointed afresh under the World Bank assisted development project "Punjab Irrigated-Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project (PIPIP)" w.e.f 01.07.2012 on contract basis initially for a period of four years. Under the Condition XVIII titled "Tenure", the project posts were sanctioned only for the project period and the period of employment was to be automatically terminated if not extended at the expiry of the contract. According to the said respondent, the period of contract was extended uptill 30.06.2017 which was the approved project period, therefore, till then their salaries have been cleared of. As per the report and parawise comments, it was also stated that the Director General Agriculture (Water Management) Punjab constituted a committee comprising of four BS.19/18 officers on 08.06.2018 to ascertain the factual position of all issues. The said committee scrutinized the relevant record of all writ petitions and found that gestation period of PIPIP expired on 30.06.2017, therefore, the services of the petitioners automatically stood terminated. However , it was further stated that the World Bank had made additional financing to PIPIP from 01.07.2017 and accordingly revised PIPIP was approved upto 30.06.2021 whereby the posts of Computer Operators and Rodmen were curt fled and were reduced.
4. However , it has specifically been stated by the respondent that in view of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, promulgated on 30.04.2018, the services of the contract employees including the petitioners may be considered by the department for their regularization and for which direction can be issued, therefore, these petitions can be disposed of in such terms.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In view of the admitted position betwee n the parties, it is clear that the respondents have shown their willingness to regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. In this behalf, a photocopy of letter dated 01.02.2019 has also been placed on record whereby the Secretary Primary & Secondary Healthcare/respondent No. 1 has constituted a committee to examine the matters of regularization of Epidemic & Preventive Control Program's employees comprising of five members to submit a detailed report within 15 days positively . However , before discussing the relevant case-law on the subject of regularization, it will be appropriate to analyze dif ferent features of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018.
7. The Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 (XV of 2018) promulgated on 30.04.2018 not in supersession or ignoring the judgment of any Court aimed at appointing on regular basis the employees serving on contract. It applies to all contractual employees work ing in the departments (as defined in Punjab Government Rules, 2011) and also the attached departments of specialized institutions. According to said Act any person appointed on contract basis would be deemed to have been validly appointed regardless of any deficiency or defect in the procedure or recruitment policy or anything contrary contained in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Such appointed contractual employees would also include those employees whose terms have been extended. However , only those contractual employees who served the department for not less than four years would be eligible to be considered for appointment on regular basis if there regular vacancy was available for regularization and they are duly qualified for the post and have not been appointed on special pay package. Their performance should have remained satisfactory , and who do not opt to continue on contract employment. A procedure has been prescribed under which cases of contract employees who were already recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission would be placed before the appointing authority for regularization but if the post on which such contract employee was appointed falls within the purview of Public Service Commission who were appointed without recommendation of the Commission, their cases would be referred to the Commission for recommendation.
However , where such post is ousted from the purview of the Commission it shall be referred to the scrutiny committee constituted by the appointing authority in order to scrutinize the academic and other record of the contract employees and will determine eligibility and qualification for their regularization who will make recommendation back to the appointing authority . Importantly , the service rendered by the contract employee shall not be counted for the pension or any other purpose. It was also prescribed in the said Act that if the contractual employment is not recommended either by the Commission or by the scrutiny committee it will be terminated forthwith. The seniority of such regularized employees will be placed at, the bottom of the respective cadre who shall rank junior to the other civil servants. Inter-se seniority of the contract employees is to be determined on the basis of their continuous service from the date of their appointment and, if they have same period then according to their ages. Such regular employee will be entitled only to the increments earned by him during the contract period and, therefore, would be converted into personal allowance. After regularization of the contract employees their terms and-conditions of service will be regulated by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. If anyone is aggrieved of the final order of the appointing authority he may file an appeal before the appella te committee constituted by the Chief Minister Punjab within 30 days but where the decision was made by the Chief Minister , any aggrieved person can file a review petition through the department to the Chief Minister . The Govern ment may, however , make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act.
8. Now it would be expedient to discus s some of the relevant case-law on regularization, to understand the parameters and wisdom behind them. In case titled "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad through Chairman and others Vs. Tanveer Sajid and others" reported as 2018 SCMR 1405 , while upholding the order of High Court passed in Constitutional jurisdiction the employees working in Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education from 3 to 12 years on contract basis were confirmed since they have been working for more than 89 days with artificial break of one day or more with a motive to avoid regularization. It was also held that since the employees were in service for a long period, it clearly showed that the posts which they were occupying were of permanent nature and not casual or temporary . Their services were not only required but were also beneficial for the employer particularly when they had been serving the departmental duties with due diligence to the satisfaction of the authorities. In case titled "Messrs State Oil Company Limited Vs. Bakht Siddique and others" reported as 2018 SCMR 1181, the outsourced employees by. a State owned company through the contractors were regularized since they were working for long period from 1984. It was held that such outsourcing of employees were seemed to be, sham, and were ordered to be regularized because they were performing the duties of permanent nature. They were ordered to be regularized 'from the date they filed the petition before the High Court, and their pensionary and other long term benefits were to be calculated from the dates they joined the company . It was further held that regularization is not the terms and conditions of service and it depends upon the length of service. In case titled "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, DG Khan and another Vs. Muhammad Altaf and others" reported as 2018 SCMR 325, the daily wagers of the Board of intermediate & Secondary Education were regularized on the ground that they served the department for a period of 9 months with the artificial break with mala fide intention. The services of the daily wagers had been matured, therefore, were held to have been regularized and the Board could make fresh appointments through advertisement. In case titled "Abdul Ghafoor and others Vs. The President National Bank of Pakistan and others" reported as 2018 SCMR 157, the order of the 13alochistan High Court, Quetta passed in the Constitutional petition was upheld and it was held that if the temporary employees of the State owned National Bank were giving janitorial services and were paid their salary/compensation on monthly basis who also served for more than one year and 11 months, they were to be regularized. Incase titled "Dr. Zaheer Iqbal and others Vs. Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others" reported as 2018 PLC (C.S.) 712, the Dental Surgeons appointed on adhoc basis until the arrival of regular incumbent applied for regularization against the seats which were advertised by Punjab Public Service Commission but no benefit was given to the candidates who fulfilled the minimum criteria of appointment. The Division Bench of this Court directed the Government not to tag their case with direct recruits who must be treated separately by Punjab Public Service Commission. Benefit must be given to them in their appointment, interview which should be conducted with objective criteria based on reasonable data to ensure transparency and fairness. In case titled "Qayyum Khan Vs. Divisional Forest Officer , Mardan and others" reported as 2017 PLC (C.S) 428 and in case titled "Rizwan Javed and others Vs. Secretar y Agriculture Livestock and others" reported as 2017 PLC (C.S) 712, it was held that where the project contract employees of Provincial Agri Business coordination Cell, 2007, Continued to serve under extension, until the change of hands of the project, the government cannot be permitted to observe discrimination under the process of cherry picking and such employees were reinstated. In case titled "Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. Vs. Muhammad Asim Rafique and others" reported as 2017 PLC(C.S.) 397, it was held that where the trainees were offered contractual job instead of regular job, the Supreme Court directed to regularize their services as they have been performing their jobs to the satisfaction of the employer who were also acclimatized with the working of the Bank and that such fresh recruitment would be an expensive business in terms of time, money and efforts. Signing of a contract could not come in the way of equilibrium between the bargaining position of the employees with the Bank. In case titled "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secy . Agriculture and others Vs. Adnanullah" reported as 2017 PLC (C.S.) 307,it was observed by the Supreme Court that where the development project is converted into the non-development/regular side on permanent basis, the status of its employees automatically chaned; therefore, the government cannot adopt the policy of cherry picking to regularize the employees of certain projects while terminating the services of others similarly placed employees. In case titled "Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others Vs. Government of Punjab and others " reported as 2003 SCMR 291, it was held that the ad hoc appointees could be regularized through the Provincial Public Service Commission and if such an employee was not found suitable, he cannot be retained in service. Similarly , in case titled "Managing Director , Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi Vs. Ghulam Abbas and others" reported as PLD 2003 SC 724, it was held that where the record does not show any specific project against which the employees were recruited and that the project against which they were appointed had not completed; the necessary inference which could be drawn is that the employees were put on a job which were likely to continue for a period of more than nine months, therefore, in view of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, they were permanent workman, and their services would not be disposed within a casual manner . In case titled "Izhar Ahmed Khan and another Vs. Punjab Labour Appellate Lahore and others" reported as 1999 SCMR 2557 , it was alsoheld that the nature of work on which a workman was employed would determine whether workman was permanent or temporary and that if the work was of a permanent nature likely to last for period of more than nine months, workman employed on such a work who had successfully completed probationary period of three months would be deemed to be a permanent workman.
9. The scanning of the above case-law , analyzing Punjab Regularization of Service Act 2018 and keeping in view the judgment passed in W.P.No.109999-2017 and allied matters which was alread y upheld in [CA No.19804-2019, and allied matters on 04.04.2019 by a Divisional Bench of this Court, I am very clear that though a mechanism was involved for regularization of the contract employees who have been serving for a period more than 04 years but the respondent would be well guided by the above case-law under which the regularization is to be done.
10. Keeping in view the above, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 1 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.