MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---- Through this single judgment I intend to decide above captioned writ petition as well as Writ Petitions Nos.129729/18, 192925/18, 23928/16, 21758/16, 110741/17 249575/18 and W.P.No. 169408/18 as common question of law and fact is involved in all these matters.
2. Allegedly facts of the case in brief are that all the petitioners were ex-Army Personnel and they were appointed as Constables in the Punjab Police in their respective districts on contract basis after fulfillment of all codal formalities. The Government of the Punjab vide notification dated 01.03.2013 regularized the services of all the contract employees but the benefit of said notification was not extended to the petitioners which constrained some of them to file Writ Petition No.21758/16 in which injunctive order was issued by this Court. The respondents nurtured grudge against the petitioners for approaching this Court, therefore, neither their contract was further extended nor they were regularized. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed as constables in their respective districts after fulfillment of eligibility criteria; that their contract was extended from time to time on the basis of their satisfactory performance; that after promulgation of regularization policy in the year 2013 a vested right for regularization of their services stood accrued in their favour but instead of doing so the respondent-department dispensed with their services in an arbitrary manner; that services of some of the equally placed colleagues of the petitioners have already been regularized as such the petitioners are being metted out with discrimination.
4. On the converse, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were contractual employees and according to their terms of contract they were liable to be terminated on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof; that it was specifically mentioned in their contract that it will not confer upon them any right for regular appointment; that after accepting said conditions the petitioners have no locus standi to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; that services of the petitioners were not governed by any statutory rules rather they were treated under the principle of master and servant as such these writ petitions are not maintainable; that services of the petitioners were dispensed with on expiry of their contract period as per terms and conditions of their contract as such no vested right of the petitioners is infringed warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction; that notification dated 01.03.2013 of the Government of Punjab is not applicable to the petitioners.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. First of all I would like to deal with the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents qua maintainability of this writ petition. It is well settled now that regularization of an employee is not a part of the terms and conditions of service of the employees for which there need to be some statutory rules but it depends upon the length of service and in terms of equity that a person who has given his prime life to a department is always kept in dark and his services are taken in a very exploitive manner . The Hon'ble apex Court in case reported as Pir Imran Sajid and others v. Managing Director/General Manager (Manager Finance) Telephon e Industries of Pakistan and others (2015 SCMR 1257 ) has held that a contract employee can invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in respect of any grievance qua terms and conditions of his service, as such this objection is repelled.
7. The second objection of the learned counsel for the respondents was that after having accepted terms and conditions of their contract the petitioners are barred to invoke Constitutional of this Court. This issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case reported as Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. v. Muhammad Asim Rafique and others (2016 SCMR 1756 ) in the following manner:- "As regards the signing of the contract by the respondents, we may observe that in a situation were the respondents after having been selected for a promised post, were offered the contract instead, and there being inequilibrium between the bargaining position of the respondents and the appellant-bank, and keeping in view the rate of unemployment in our country , the respondents had no option but to sign the contact in order to avoid further disappointments and frustration by exposing themselves to unemployment and therefore the same should not be allowed to be used as an obstructive instrument in their way of confirmation/ regularization."
Therefore, seeking guidance from the above esteemed judgments the petitioners cannot be non-suited on that basis.
8. Now coming to the merits of the case. It is an admitted fact that Government of the Punjab vide notification dated 01.03.2013 directed regularization of services of all the contract employees. In order to justify their act now the respondents have taken the defence that the said notification is not applicable to the petitioners but bare perusal of said notification shows that its benefit is extended to various Government Departments of the Punjab. If the intention of the competent authority was to exclude the Punjab Police from it then it might have been specifically incorporated in the said notification. The tendency of running the affairs of institutions on day to day basis and exploiting services of the employees for an indefinite period has been reprimanded by the Hon'ble apex Court time and again. hi case of Pir Imran Sajid supra it has been observed as under:- "It is now well established that right to life as envisaged by Article 9 of the Constitution, includes the right to livelihood and as laid down in the case of Abdul Wahab (supra), the "right to livelihood, therefore, cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority ." Certainly , as has further been held in the said judgment; "it shall unmistakably be permissible that the employment of any employee can be brought to an end, but obviously in accordance with law", whereas in the present case, and as observed earlier , 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 appellants."
It was further laid down in the above esteemed judgment that:- "It hardly needs to be emphasized that the whole edifice of governance of the society has its 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. Provisions 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 Governmental 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 Constitu tion. It would include principle of natural justice, procedural fairness and procedural propriety . The action which is mala fide or colourable is not recorded 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."
10. The petitioners were inducted in service after fulfillment of codal formalities. Throughout the period they served for respondent-department and there was no complaint qua their work or conduct rather they achieved appreciation certificates. Pursuant to their satisfactory performance the contract of the petitioners was extended from time to time which is sufficient to believe that there is nothing adverse on their part. Government Notification for regularization of services of all the contract employees was issued without any distinction, therefore, employees of one particular class/department cannot be deprived of getting the benefit of said notification merely at the whims or caprice of the authority at the helm of af fairs.
12. It is also worthwhile to mention here that services of some of the equally placed colleagues of the petitioners have been regularized vide order dated 11.09.2015, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to get the said benefit. For what has been discussed above, all these writ petitions are allowed . The petitioners are reinstated in service from the date of their termination. Respondent No.2 is directed to constitute a committee as required in the regularization policy for the year 2013 to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and complete this exercise within two months from the date hereof.