MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J. Petitioners have filed the instant constitutional petition, under Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, with the following prayer; "It is therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition, this august Court may please to direct the respondents to regularize the services/posts of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment like other employees according to The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019 OR Grant other relief, not specifically aske d for, which is flowing from the instant petition and inevitable in the interest of justice."
2. Precisely , the case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Special Police Officials ("SPO") on contract basis and on fixed pay of Rs. 15,000/- per month, as per the following dates of their appointment orders;
1. Petitioner No. 1 namely Israr Ali on 20.08.2019.
2. Petitioner No. 2 namely Bakht Afsar on 01.08.2019.
3. Petitioner No. 3 namely W ajid Ali on 17.10.2019.
4. Petitioner No. 4 namely Numan Ali on 07.11.2019. and since then they are performing their duties. It is further averred in the petition that the provincial government through the provincial assembly has passed and enacted an Act in the' name of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2019") where under the services of all their colleagues were regularized and notified vide notification dated 08.04.2020, however the petitioners were illegally left out by not extending them the benefits of the aforesaid Act of 2019, which inaction of the respondents have offended the petitioners and as such they have approached this Court for directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as per the mandate of The Act of 2019.
3. When this case was taken up for hearing on 01.06.2020, respondents No. 1 & 2 were directed to file their comments which they have accordingly submitted where their stance is that petitioners No. 1, 3 & 4 were not entitled to be given the benefit of The Regularization Act 2019 because their appointment orders were issued after the cut-of f date of 1st August 2019 as required under section 3 of The Act of 2019, whereas petitioner No. 2 namely Bakht Afsar was appointed on 01.08.2019 so he was eligible for the desired regula rization, however his name was erroneously not recommended for regularization of his services, but subsequently his case has been sent to the C.P.C Peshawar for consideration.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Astt:A.G. for the official respondents were heard in detail and the record perused with their able assistance.
5. In order to address the grievance of the petitioners it would be relevant to reproduce sub-clauses (a), (e) and (f) of section 2 of The Act of 2019;
2. Definitions.-- In this Act unless the context otherwis e provides, the following expressions shall have the same meanings as are assigned to them, that is to say
(a) "contract appointment" means appointment of Special Police Officers, made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment;
(b) ...............
(c) ...............
(d) ...............
(e) "post" means a post under Government or in connection with the affairs of Government to be filled in through prescribed method; and 0 "Special Police Officer" means an employee, appointed in Police Department, from time to time, on contract basis or fixed pay basis, under the nomenclature of Special Police Officers or Special Police Force, performing Police or security duties.
Similarly , it would also be relevant to reproduce section 3 of The Act of 2019 which is as under;
3. Regularization of services of Special Police Officers.--All the Special Police , Officers, appointed on contract basis or fixed pay basis who are holding the post on 1st August 2019 , shall be regularized with immediate effect, subject to the condition of section 5 of this Act.
The aforesaid provisions are clear in its language which lays that a special police officer who has been appointed on contract basis or on fixed pay basis and who is holding the post on 1st August 2019 shall be regularized with immediate effect and as such if the aforesaid criteria is applied to the case of petitioners then it is apparent on the face of record that out of the four petitioners, petitioner No. 1 namely Israr Ali, petitioner No. 3 namely Wajid Ali and petitioner No. 4 namely Numan Ali were not holding their respective posts of SPO on 1st August 2019 as their appointment orders (as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment) shows that they were appointed much later of the aforesaid cut-of f date (01.08.2019), whereas only petitioner No. 2 namely Bakht Afsar was appointed on 1st August 2019 , therefore as per the comments of the respondents and as stated at the bar that they have realized their mistake and have sent his case to the competent authority for regularization of his services.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued and emphasized time and again that since The Act of 2019 is a beneficial legislation, therefore the benefit of same could be extended to the petitioners, however we are afraid that his this submission could not be appreciated as when the language of the Statute is clear in terms of its applicability qua a class of employees, then the Court can neither "Read in" something in it nor it can "Read down" something from it. In the present case, the statute has itself provided a specific date of 1st August 2019 and since except petitioner No. 2 rest of the petitioners were not holding the posts of Special Police Official on that cut- off date, therefore they are not entitled to claim any benefit of The Act of 2019. In the case of "Haroon-ur-Rashid v/s Lahore Development Authority & others" reported as 2016 SCMR 931 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in this view of the matter Courts have a duty to construe and apply laws to specific fact situations. Sometimes they have to construe a particular law as meaning nothing and sometimes they have to construe the law as meaning something different from the letter of the law passed by the Parliament. The offending provision or part of it is read down to the extent it is necessary to give it legal effect, or will be severed if it cannot be read down, and the remaining part and provisions of the statute will remain intact. Similar observations were also recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary & others v/s M.Q.M through Deputy Convener & others" reported as PLD 2014 Supreme Court 531 that an argument was raised that the Court should make every effort to save the statute and this can be done by invoking the principle of 'reading in' or 'reading down' . However in this context two principles have to be kept in view. First, that the object of 'reading down' is primarily to save the statute and in doing so the paramount question would be whether in the event of reading down, can the statute remain functional? Second, would the legislature have enacted the law, if that issue had been brought to its notice which is being agitated before the Court?
7. It is settled since long that a contract/ ad-hoc /fixed pay employees could not claim regularization of their services unless and until the same is back by any law/statute. In the present case though there is a law in the shape of The Regularization Act 2019 for the regularization of services of Special Police Officer ("SPO") but that law has been applied by the legislature to a particular class of SPO i.e. those who have been appointed and holding the post on 01.08.2019 and as such this specific condition takes out the case of petitioners No. 1, 3 & 4 from the palms and applicability of The Regularization Act 2019. In the case of "Khushal Khan Khattak University through Vice- Chancellor & others v/s Jabran Ali Khan & others" reported 2021 SCMR 977 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is settled law that there is no vested right to seek regularization for employees hired on contractual basis unless there was legal and statutory basis for the same. Similarly , in the case of "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers Welfare Board v/s Raheel Ali Gohar" reported as 2020 SCMR 2068 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in any case, this Court in recent judgments has unequivocally held that contractual employees have no automatic right to be regularized unless the same has specifically been provided for in a law. Most recently , in a judgment of a bench of this Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 4504 to 4576, 4588 and 4589 of 2017 dated 08.01.2013 this court has held that : "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that contractual employees have no right to be regularized until there is a law provided to that effect and we are not confronted with any such legal proposition. They are the contractual employees and they have to serve till the pleasure of their master and in case of any wrongful termination, which according to them has taken place, they cannot seek the reinstatement. At the best, they can only have the compensation for the wrongful termination by applying to the competent court of law. Resultantly , these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside."
Similar observations were also recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v/s Muhammad Sami Ullah" reported as 2021 SCMR 998 that it is pertinent to note that an adhoc, temporary or contractual appointment does not create any vested right of regularization in favour of the appointee . In the case of "Vice Chancellor Bacha Khan University Charsada, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others v/s Tanveer Ahmad & others" reported as 2021 SCMR 1995 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the learned High Court in the impugned judgment has held that the Respondents were appointed through the prescribed manner , albeit, on contract under the KP University Act, 2016. It is settled law that a person employed on contract basis has no vested right to regularization. By mere efflux of time, an employee cannot claim regularization and knock on the door of the High Court for the same . Likewise, in the case of "Govt: of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Livesto ck & others v/s Saeed-ul-Hassan & others" reported as 2021 SCMR 1376 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the learned High Court in the impugned judgments has held that the Respondents had a vested right to be regularized, on the basis of satisfactory service, because of the conversion of different projects to the regular side. 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.
So in view of the above settled law the plea of the petitioners for regularization of their contract services could not be entertained.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted that as to which of his vested right qua the regularization of their services has been violated, his reply and emphasis was that since petitioners are duly qualified and have been inducted in service after fulfillment of all the prescribed formalities and that some colleagues of the petitioners were given the benefit of The Regularization Act 2019 and some of them have also been allowed to continue with their duty, therefore they too have at least a right to continue with their services, however we believe that a wrong or illegal or unlawful order/direction/practice could neither be approved nor followed nor appreciated on the ground of discrimination as in legal parlance it is settled since long that two wrongs cannot make one right.
9. We have asked the learned counsel for the petitioners that which of the petiti oners' any other right has been violated by the respondents for the enforcement of which they have filed the instant petition under Article 199 of The Constitution of Pakistan, however he could not pin pointed any such right conferred upon them by the Constitution or any other law/statute or accrued to them by an act or omission of any person including the respondents. It is relevant to mention here that in a broader sense rights could be categorized in three kinds i.e.; i. Fundamental rights are those rights which are conferred upon a citizen by The Constitution of Pakistan. ii. Legal rights are those rights which are conferred upon a person by any law or statute other than The Constitution of Pakistan. iii. Vested rights are those rights which are accrued to a person due to an act or omission, action or inaction of another person.
In a writ jurisdiction what the writ petitioners are required is to first establish that they have suffered a "legal grievance" or they have wrongly been deprived or they have wrongly been refused something which they were otherwise legally entitled to, and it is only after the establishment of such a right, followed by its violation or refusal by a public functionaries, and it would be thereafter that he/they may be held as entitled for the desired writ. In the case of "Fazl-e-Haq, Accountant-General, West Pakistan vs. The State" reported as PLD 1960 Supreme Court (Pak.) 295, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court could only be invoked by a person whose legal right has been denied. This view was also followed in the case of "Mian Fazal Din vs. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another" reported as PLD 1969 Supreme Court 223, in which it was held that petitioner has to show that he had a personal interest in performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage.
10. In view of the above we hold and declare as under;
(i) For maintaining a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, a writ petitioners has/have to establish that any of his fundamental right (conferred upon them by the Constitution) or legal right (conferred upon them by any other law/statute) or vested right (accrued to them by an act or omission of another person) has been violated.
(ii) A Court of law could neither add nor omit something in a Statute, where the language of the Statute is clear , express, specific and unambiguous in its language.
(iii) An ad-hoc/contract/fix pay employee(s) could only be regularized if the same is back by a law/Statute/Rules/Regularization.
11. With the above observations the instant writ petition being bereft of any merits is hereby dismissed.