IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Through the instant appeal, the Appellants have challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26-06-2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 23925/2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment "). The Respondents through their Writ Petition challenged the order dated 27-06 -2016 passed by the Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, whereby the plea of the Respondents that they be regularized from the date of their reinstatement instead of with immediate effect, was rejected. The learned High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondents.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this lis are that the Respondents were appointed on contract basis as Professors/Associate Professor vide orders dated 08-09-2008, 15-05-2006 and 15-09-2008 respectively .
Thereafter , their employment was terminated vide orders dated 10-09-2009, 07-11-2009 and 26-11-2009 respectively . The Respondents challenged their termination orders by filing a Writ Petition. Resultantly , vide order dated 21-01-2013, the High Court issued certain directions under which, the Respondents filed a joint representation followed by another Writ Petition seeking implementation of the order dated 21-01-2013. As such, a direction for implementation was issued and the Respondents were reinstated with immediate effect vide order dated 27-10-2014. Thereafter , the services of the Respondents were regularized with immediate effect vide order dated 22-06-2015. Aggrieved of being regularized with immediate effect, the Respondents filed another Writ Petition against the order dated 22-06-2015 praying that they be regularized from the date of their reinstatement.
The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary Health, Government of Punjab to decide the applications of the Respondents. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary Health vide order dated 27-06-2016 rejected the claim of the Respondents. The Respondents filed a Writ Petition there against which was allowed vide the Impugned Judgment.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order dated 09-1 1-2020 in the following terms:- "The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, contends that the respondent was a contract employee and his service was terminated on 10-09-2009. He further contends that the Policy of Regularization was introduced by the Punjab Government in the year 2013 and in the earlier round of litigation, the Lahore High Court has passed an interim order and thereafter , vide final order dated 12-05-2016, disposed of the writ petition, whereby the petitioners were directed to consider and decide the matter of regularization. Further contends that the service of the respondent was regularized on 22-06-2015 with immediate effect, which is the date of the notification itself and the respondent claims that he should be granted regularization from the date of his appointment was not at all tenable and the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 26-06-2019 altogether without considering the law applicable to the case in hand granted such relief to the respondent."
4. The learned AAG for the Appellants has argued that the Respondents could not have been regularized from the dates of their reinstatement. In this respect. the learned AAG has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 13-03-2019 passed in Secretary Population Welfare and others v. Habib-ur-Rehman and others . He has further argued that the Writ Petition filed by the Respondents before the High Court was not maintainable given the bar in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Constitution") because the Respondents became Civil Servants after their regularization on 22-06-2015. Further there is no vested right of retrospective regularization and, regularization necessarily requires the backing of the law which could only be given to the Respondents prospectively . As such, the Respondents could not have been regularized especially for the period when they were not even in service. In addition, the Respondents were appointed for a fixed term of two years or till the arrival of an incumbent either through the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "PPSC") or through promotions, whichever was earlier . The learned AAG has argued that the Respondents were reinstated vide order dated 27-10-2014 with immediate effect and the said order of reinstatement with immediate effect was never challenged by the Respondents. As such, the order in question became a past and closed transaction.
5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand has supported the Impugned Judgment. He has argued, that the Respondents could not be met with discrimination and deserved the same relief granted to other similarly placed Medical Practitioners.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the recor d. The issue before this Court is whether the Respondents could be regula rized with effect from the date of their reinstatement or whether they were to be reinstated with immediate effect. It is an admitted fact that the Respondents were employed on contract basis for a fixed term. Admittedly , the services of the Respondents were terminated. As result of a Court order , the department addressed their grievances and reinstated them vide order dated 27-10-2014.
7. The learned High Court, while relying on judgments passed by this Court in Managing Director Sid Northern Gas Company Ltd. Stadium Road, Karachi and others v. Ghulam Abbas and others (PLD 2003 SC 724), Munawar Jamal Quresht v. The Chief Engineer (South) Punjab, Lahore and another (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1099) and Capt. (Retd.) Naqiullah v. Chairman, State Engineering Corporation Ltd. and others (1989 CLC 2384 ) has held that reinstatement in the case of the Respondents and even otherwise would mean to restore or replace the Respondents in their last position or office from which the Respondents were removed. Essentially , the learned High Court has directed that the Respondents ought to be regularized with effect from 10-09-2009, 07-11-2009 and 26-11-2009 respectively i.e., the date when their contracts were terminated. The learned High Court in this respect has held that, if the department wished to give immediate effect to the action it took; it ought to have offered the Respondents fresh contracts instead of using the word "reinstatement". In this respect, the relevant portion of the learned High Court's order is reproduced as under:- "....since the present petitioners are to be considered to be on continuous service and their reinstatement will be counted from the date of their termination, therefore, while regularizing the services, he shall ensure that they shall not, be discriminated with reference to the Notification No. SOEY/S&GAD)7-120/2013 dated 12th March, 2013, whereby , the services of other sknilarly placed employees will be regularized from back dates."
8. We are unable to agree with the findings of the learned High Court. Admittedly , the Respondents were employed on contract for two years. The relevant portion common in all of the appointment letters is as follows:- "TENURE : - The period of contract will be for two years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post OR till the arrival of incumbent either through the Punjab Public Service Commission or through promotion on acting charge/ officiating/regular basis whichever is earlier ."
Perusal of the aforenoted terms of the appointment contracts of the Respondents makes it clear that the employment of the Respondents was for a term of two years. However , the term could be lesser than two years if a person was recommended either by the PPSC, or an officer was promoted to the post against which the Respondents were working on acting charge basis, officiating basis or, regular basis. This is so because of the words "whichever is earlier" at the end of the sentence which is a condition to the term relating to tenure in the appointment contract, means that, the services of the Respondents could be dispensed with if either of the two events mentioned above accrued.
9. We have seen the termination letters of the Respondents. Respondent No. 01 was replaced by an officer who was promoted to the post of Respondent No. 01 on an acting charge basis vide notification dated 10-09-2009.
Respondent No. 02 was replaced by an officer selected by the PPSC vide notification dated 07-11-2009.
Respondent No. 03, being the junior-most, was also replaced by an officer selected by the PPSC vide notification dated 26-11-2009. As such, Respondents were dealt with according to, terms 'of their appointment letters, which allowed the Appellants to replace their services in the manner provided above. Nothing illegal has been found by us to have been done by the Appellants in this regard.
10. It is settled law that the Court cannot step into the shoes of the appointing authority . The Appellants mentioned that the Respondents were reinstated with immediate effect and, were regularized with immediate effect. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondents did not challenge the order dated 27.10-2014 according to which they were reinstated with immediate effect. They have only challenged the order . dated 22-06-2015 whereby , they were regularized with immediate effect. The fact that the Appellants have reinstated the Respondents and regularized the Respondents with immediate effect cannot be interfered with by the Court in absence of any illegality , the argument that other similarly placed medical practitioners were given relief, therefo re, the Respondents cannot be discriminated against is misconceived. Firstly , each case has to be analyzed on its facts and circumstances and relief which is available to a party in one set of circumstances is not always available to another party in a different set of circumstances like those before us. Secondly , regularization takes effect prospectively , from the date when a regularization order is passed. In the absence of any law/order/policy providing for retrospective regularization, the Respondents cannot claim regularization of their services based on past B service rendered on contract basis as well as the period during which they were out of service. As such, the conclusion of the High Court to the effect that the Appellants could not have regularized the Respondents with immediate effect is ex facie erroneous and is accordingly held as unsustainable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Khushal Khan Khattak University v . Jabran All Khan ( 2021 SCMR 977 Supreme Court) which held as follows:- "The learned counsel for the Appellants has pointed out that the contracts of the Respondents expired in March 2018 whereas the Judgment of the High Court was delivered in December 2018. As such, the Constitutional petition pending before the learned High Court had become infractuous insofar as it could not have been entertained because the Respondents had ceased to be in the employment of the Appellants. In any event the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revive or renew expired contracts . The Judgment of the learned High Cour t, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, could only apply prospectively and not retrospectively , Conferring a retrospective right upon the Respondents when their contracts had already expired was ex facie erroneous, illegal and without jurisdiction Even otherwise it is settle law that continuity in service is required the reularization. Since the contracts of the Respondents had expired in March 2013, - it could not be held by any stretch the language that there was no break in the continuity of their service . The Appellants were at liberty to dispense with the services of the Respondents in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract which were accepted by the Respondents when they accepted contractual employment. The High Court could not have amended or altered the terms and conditions of the contract of the Respondents in exercise of its constitutional Jurisdiction under Article.
199 of the Constitution." (Underlining is ours)
11. It is an admitted fact that services of the Respondents were terminated vide the notifications mentioned above on the basis of and not in violation of any term of their appointment letters. They remained out of service and were later reinstated vide order dated 2710.2014 pursuant to an order of the High Court. "Reinstated" in the context of the present case did not by any stretch . of imagination mean taken back into service on terms and conditions different from those contained in their original letters of appointment. In the first instance, the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction has no power to extend expired contracts or order "reinstatement" of contractual employees. This Court has repeatedly held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot ordinarily be invoked in matters arising out of contractual employment matters , The remedy available to an aggrieved employee is before a Civil Court for breach of contract/damages etc. based on the principle of master and servant, Unfortunately , the High Court completely lost sight of this judgmental principle, probably on account of lack of proper assistance,
12. It may further be noted that the Respondents remained out of service for almost five years. This fact was also examined by a Committee constituted by the Government which held that since the Respondents remained out of service, they were liable to be reinstated with immediate effect. The said reinstatement with immediate effect was never challenged by the Respondents. It has nowhere been argued that they were in continuous service. Rather , this is an assumption that has been made by the learned High. Court for reasons best known to it. There is no doubt about the definition of the word "reinstatement", It means to reinstate in the position previously held i.e., the contractual post which was occupied by the Respondent. It was only after the order of regularization dated 22.06.2015 that the Respondents were regularized. As such, even based on the definition provided by the learned High Court, the Respondents could be reinstated into service on contract basis, which was already the case and, which was never challenged before any forum.
13. This Court has held in numerous pronouncements that there is no automatic right of an employee to get his/her past service rendered on contract basis counted towards regular service or regularization. An employee cannot choose the date when he/she wishes to be regularized Regularization is the prerogative of the Executive and it cannot be arbitrarily interfered with by the Court. Such interferences militate the mandate provided to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and, must be exercised keeping in mind the fundamental principles of judicial review and tracheotomy of powers. Long and satisfactory contractual service does not confer any right on an employee to claim regularization at all or for the matter from an earlier date. Reliance in this regard is placed on Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others v. Saeed ul Hassan and others (2021 SCMR 1376 ) wherein it was held that: - "We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court for the reason that it is by now a settled principle of law that, long or satisfactory contractual service does not confer a vested right for regularization as conversion from contractual to regular appointment requires statutory support."
The statutory support for regularization was only received by the Respondents after the letter dated 22-06-2015 was issued and not before that. As such, the conclusion in this respect reached by the learned High Court is patently erroneous in law and fact.
14. The learned High Court in the conclud ing paragraph of the Impugned Judgment has held that employees were regularized retrospectively vide notificat ion dated 12-03-2013 and the Respondents cannot be discriminated against. We have examined the said notification which also uses the words "with immediate effect". As such, the conclusion reached by the learned High Court is against the record and is accord ingly held as unsustainable and misconceived. Even otherwise, after the notification dated 22-06-2015 was issued , the Respondents became Civil Servants and in the facts and circumstances of this case were required to approach the Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievances given the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution.
15. The learned High Court has proceeded on the incorrect application of the law and has applied the incorrect principles of the law to the facts and circumstances of the case warranting interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the Respondents has been unable to persuade us otherwise.
16. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, and the Impugned Judgment dated 26-06-2019 passed by the learned High Court is set aside.