Qazi Khalid All Chairman, J.--Since in all the titled appeals, the appellants have claimed similar relief, therefore, through this single judgment we are inclined to dispose of the titled appeals and Appeal No. 538(P)CS/ 2018 is taken as the lead appeal.
2. Through this appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the appellant has prayed that the respondents may be directed to treat the period with effect from 01.08.2005 to 31.01.201 1 served by him as regular/permanent service along with all back benefits including increments, pay protection etc.
3. Succinctly the facts as stated in the Memo. of Appeal and argued by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellant was selected in the Frontier Constabulary (F.C) vide letter dated 21.07.2005 in response to an advertisement published, in the Daily "Jang" on 04.04.2005 wherein it was not mentioned that the appointment will be made on contract basis. In the appo intment letter it was clearly mentioned that annual increments shall be admissible under the normal rules. Initially all appointments of civil servants are made on temporary basis which continued on regular basis till their retirement. After completion of six years uninterrupted regular service the appellant was regularized vide order dated 01.02.201 1 with immediate effect instead of 01.08.2005. It is stated that although the appellant was granted annua l increments with effect from 01.08.2005 but on regularization with effect from 01.02.201 1 his salary was fixed at initial of Basic Pay Scale-06, causing financ ial loss of six annual increments to him which he was receiving prior to his regularization. The act of the responde nts is an attempt to deprive the appellant of his pensionary benefits. Num ber of his colleagues recruited through subsequent advertisements, were appointed on regular basis, while the appellant who was appointed earlier continued on contract, therefore the appellant was discriminated and being aggrieved he filed departmental representation for counting of his service with effect from 01.08.2005 on regular basis. When departmental representation of the appellant remained unconsidered he along with other colleagues filed Writ Petition No. 2256-P of 2013 in the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar for passing of an order of regularization from the date of initial appointment like other colleagues. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 02.12.2015 by observing that since the petitioners have been satisfactorily working on permanent post right from the year 2005 i.e. from the date of initial recruitment till the date of their regularization i.e. 2011, they have the right to be regularized with effect from their initial recruitment for the purpose of seniority and other emolum ents, in order to remove the heart burning and discrimination. The respondent-F .0 assailed the judgment of, the. Peshawar High Court, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the ground that the employees of F.0 were civil servants and fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal and the Peshawar High Court's jurisdiction was ousted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the CPLA along with others [CPLA No. 521 of 2015 , 2387, 2388, 2552, 2553 of 2016 and Civil Petitions No. 2937-2940 and 4287 of 2017] by means of judgment dated 29.01.2018 holding that matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the FC, an appeal before the Tribunal is available to them as the exclusive remedy under the law and allowed that this remedy may be availed by them within the statutory period of limitation commencing from the date of issuance of certified copy of this judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claim of the appellant for his regularization with effect from 01.08.2005 has already been accepted by the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court in its judgment dated 02.12.2015 on the basis whereof the contract period with effect from 01.08.2005 to 31.03.2012 deserves to be regularized from the date of initial appointment i.e. 01.08.2005. The learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment reported as 2016 SCMR 1611 (Abdul Hameed and others vs. Special Secretary Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore) and also on a judgment dated 19.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 2016(R)CS/2015. It is contended that despite the fact that the pay slips issued by the AGPR mentioned that the service rendered by the Appellant during the previous years is "qualifying service", his previous service was not counted towards regular service. In the letter of appointment of the appellant also contained a clause that he is entitled for annual increments.
Therefore, previous service rendered by him has invariably to be treated as regular service.
5. Learned counsel further argued that the post on which the appellant was appointed on 01.08.2005 is of a permanent nature which is evident from the fact that there is no break in his service since 01.08.2005 upto 31.03.2012 i.e the date of his regularization vide order dated 26.03.2012. The Respondent No. 1 admitted that all FC Sepoys were given regular training during 2005 which means that the appellant was recruited on regular posts and intention was there to treat him as regular employee from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f. 01.08.2005 but he was deprived of his past rendered service without any justification. The learned counsel placed further reliance on the judgments reported as (i) 2005 SCMR 100, (ii) 2015 SCMR 1257 and (Hi) 2016 SCMR 1611. The benefit of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court on a question of law is to be extended to all citizens falling in the relevant category and placed on 2009-SCMR-1 . Therefore, the appellant also deserves to be given the same relief as per relief to the civil servants as per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as 2018 SCMR 157 & 2018 SCMR 380 .
6. Further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as 2017 PLC (CS) 692 has held that even if a civil servant has not filed departmental representation but has gone to the Hon'ble High Court through a Writ Petition, there was no necessity to again file a departmental representation for seeking remedy from the Honourable Tribunal:
7. On the other hand, the respondents countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting their para-wise comments wherein objection has been raised that the appeal is grossly time barred and also that the appellant did not file departmental appeal under the relevant law challenging his regularization, hence the appeal is not maintainable.
8. It is contended that the respondents treated the appellant in accordance with the relevant law, rules and regulations and no right pertaining to the terms and conditions of his service has been violated. or infringed upon by them. It is contended that pursuant to an advertisement published in Daily Jang Rawalpindi on 04.04.2005, the appellant along with 743 personnel was selected for recruitment by the Recruitmen t Committee vide Commandant Frontier Constabulary's order dated 21.07.2005. He was selected as recruit on co tract basis at fixed rates of pay along with allowances admissible under the rules effective from 01.08.2005 i.e the date of commencement of recruit basic training or date of medical examination/fitness or date of arrival report at FC training school, whichever is later. The appellant was provided platoon number and was also directed to report to DOFC Shabqadar/Swat to undergo recruit basic training. After completion of training, the appellant joined the duties with the subject Multi- National Companies. The appellant along-with other recruits, was hired initially on a temporary/contractual basis.
9. It is contended, that as per order of the Commandant Frontier Constabulary , the services of the appellant were held to be purely temporary . According to the Terms and Conditions, formulated and conveyed to the DOFC vide Memo. dated 28.03.2005 it was clearly held that this contractual appointment would not confer any right on the appellant to be placed in the gradation/seniority list of the cadre/group/tribe to which the subject post belongs.
Moreover , the said Terms and Conditions clearly stated that service rendered under it shall not qualify for pension or gratuity . As per CFC's Order , the contr actual appointments of the appellant was dependent on the contract with the subject Multi-National Companies involved. Hence, pays and allowances of the appellant were to be paid from the fund provided/generated by the afore said Multi-national Companies. In fact, his pay and allowances would be paid in Platoon's acquaintances rolls and debited to Multi-National Companies Funds being maintained at CHQ, Peshawar . The Districts were also directe d to send pay bills of the platoons recruited on contract basis to the GHQ, Peshawar for checking and arranging payments of pay and allowances. Hence, the appellant was not paid salary from the Public Exchequer and no amount was deducted from him. Moreover , as per the terms and conditions, the period of the contract was not to exceed two years from the date of assumption of duties/ charge, however , the period be extendable subject to continuation of contract with Multi National Companies; firms and department whatever the case may be. Finally , as per terms and conditions the appellant his appointment would be deemed terminated if the contract with the subject Multi-National Companies expired. In fact, to this effect, the CFC's Order went on to State 'the raising has been made against the MNC's as such the services of appellant will be terminated as and when the regular platoon's are with-drawn by the MNC's.
10. It is further contended that the appel lant was appointed on contract, therefore, it cannot be held that he was permanent employee from his date of initial appointment. The services of the appellant were regularized later on CFC's WT Message No. 3935 in 2011 whereby he was transferred to regular platoons; hence the appellant can only be considered as permanent employee from the aforesaid date of his regularization. Since the appellant was initially recruited as contractual employee, he cannot be considered as permane nt from the - date of his initial recruitment solely on the basis of the fact that he has been working for the respondents continuously , without a day's break, since his recruitment. The appellant was treated strictly in accordance with the law and none of his rights have been violated or infringed upon and he has not been deprived of any benefits. Initially he was appointed on contract in 2005 without any pension or gratuity and was regularized in 2011 and placed reliance on 2014 PLC (C.S) 377. It is contended that the judgme nt dated 02.12.2015 of the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court passed in. Writ Petition No. 2256-P/2013 has been set aside by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 29.01.2018 passed in connected Civil Appeals, the appellant can no longer place reliance on the aforesaid Judgment of the. Hon'ble Peshawar High Court as it no longer holds the field.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well Mr. S.M. Raza, learned Assistant Attorney General and also Mr. Muhammad Owais, Advocate for the respondents and perused the record.
12. In the first instance, we have to decide the preliminary objection of the respon dents that the appeal is grossly time barred and also that the appellant did not file departmental appeal under the relevant law challenging his regularization; hence the appeal is not maintainable. The appellant filed departmental representation for regularization of his service with effect from 01.08.2005 and when the same remained unconsidered he along with others filed Writ Petition before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar which was allowed vide order dated 02.12.2015. The respondent-Frontier Constabulary assailed the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the CPLAs [No. 521 of 2015, 2387 , 2388, 2552, 2553 of 2016 and Civil Petitions No. 2937-2940 and 4287 of 2017] vide judgment dated 29.01.2018 holding that matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the F.C., an appeal before the Tribunal is available to them as the exclusive remedy under the law and allowed that this remedy may be availed by them within the statutory period of limitation commencing from the date of issuance of certified copy of this judgment. The date of completion/delivery of the copy of the judgment passed in the above CPLAs is dated 19.03.2018 and the appellant within 30 days filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 11.04.2018, hence the objection of the respondents that no departmental appeal has been filed and also that the appeal is time barred, is repelled.
13. On merit it is admitted position that the appellant was appointed on contract basis at fixed rates of pay vide CFC's Order dated 21.07.2005 with the subject "Contract Recruitment-2005", whose services were regularized vide order dated 01.02.201 1. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that claim of the appellant for his regularization with effect from 01.08.2005 has already been accepted by the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court in its judgment dated 02.12.2015 and also that he has been working in the respondent-Frontier Constabulary continuously , without a day's break, since his recruitment, is not tenable as the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the CPLA vide judgment dated 29.01.2018, which was filed by the respondent-F .0 against the judgment of the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court on the ground that the employees of F.0 were civil servants and fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal and the Peshawar High Court's jurisdiction was ousted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment has held that matter relating to the terms and conditions, of service of the employees of the F.C, an appeal before the Tribunal is available to them as the exclusive remedy under the law, hence the judgment of the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court is no more in the field. The reliance of learned counsel for the appellant upon the case laws, in the peculiar circumstances of the case are distinguishable and not attracted to the case in hand.
14. We have also been able to lay our hands at a judgment dated 09.07.2020 announced on 07.08.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal Nos.17 to 29 of 2020 filed by Pakistan Railways against the judgment dated 18.07.2019 passed by a Bench of this Tribunal headed by the Chairman, FST in Appeals No. 1885 to 1887(R)CS of 2016 and 1960 to 1969(R)CS of 2016 titled Sajid Hussain and others. The Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the judgment of this Tribunal dated 18.07.2019 wherein the relief was given with immediate effect and not from the date of initial appointment.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment dated 25.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2020 titled Government of PKP through Secretary Industries, Commerce and Technical Education, Manpower Training Department, Peshawar & others vs. Rehmat Gul and others, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court in W.P. No. 2643-P/2012 whereby the said petition was accepted and the respondent department was ordered to regularize the service of the petitioners on their respective posts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed in C.P.43- L/2021 to C.P.58-L/2021 [Deputy Director Food, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad etc vs. Muhammad Tauqir Shah and others ] has held that the regularization of a contract is with immediate effect i.e. from the date of regularization. In a recent case the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed in C.P.No. 2210-L/2020 etc titled Province of Punjab, through Secretary Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab Lahore etc vs. Dr . Javed Iqbal and others, has held as under: "8. For the above reasons, we convert these petitions into appeals and allow the same; the impugned consolidated order of the Tribunal is set aside, and the respondents shall stand regularized w.e.f 15.2.201 1 i.e. the date of regularization".
Reliance is also placed on a judgment of this Tribunal passed by a three Members Bench, headed by the Chairman FST, reported as PLJ 2021 Tr.C. (Services) 60 titled Naseeer Ahmed and others vs. Pakis tan Railways through its Chairman, Islamabad and others.
16. It is well settled principle of law that judgments/orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding on the Service Tribunals, High Courts and all the functionaries. Article 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 states that "all executive and judicial authorities, throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court", hence the orders passed in above cases by the Honble Supr eme Court of Pakistan have got to be implemented in its true letter and spirit.
17. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan mentioned in Paras 14 & 15 supra, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.
18. This judgment will also apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals listed above.
19. Parties be informed accordingly .