JAWAD HASSAN, J.----The Petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") by challenging a quasi-judicial order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Respondent No.2 pursuant to directions issued in W .P.No.31609 of 2020 dated 14.07.2020.
2. Facts of the case, as per petition, are that the Petitioners were appointed on different posts by the Respondents on temporary basis as make shift/stop-gap arrangements for a period of 89 days and which was extended from time to time and last extension was given on 26.02.2020. They sought regularization in service for which they, instead of approaching the Respondents, opted to file W.P. No.31609 of 2020. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the Respondents to consider their case for regularization but their request for the said purpose was ultimately refused through the impugned order . Hence, this writ Petition.
3. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the Respondents vehemently denying the allegations levelled in the petition and praying for dismissal of the same.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inter-alia contended that the impugned order is the result of mis-reading and non-reading of relevant law; that the Respondents have granted benefit of regularization to similarly placed person who were engaged on daily wages but discriminatory treatment has meted out with them that the nature of posts of the Petitioners is of permanent therefore , they are entitled to be regularized. In order to support his contention, learned counsel relied on "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, D.G. Khan and anothe r v.
Muhammad Altaf and others" (2018 SCMR 325), "Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others" (2018 SCMR 1181) and "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad through Chairman and others v . Tanveer Saud and others" ( 2018 SCMR 1405 ).
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer along with counsel for the Respondents vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the Petitioners were appoin ted purely on temporary basis and after expiry of contracts they were no more the employee of the Respondents and their salaries for the work done upto 30.06.2020 have also been paid to them. It is further stated that the Respondents did not extend the contracts due to non-availability of funds by the Government under head "Contingent Paid Staf f".
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.
7. Admittedly , the services of the Petitioners were engaged by the Respondents purely on work charge/daily wages in terms of Clause-89(d) of the Lahore Arts Council (Alhamara) Regulations, 2010 (the "Regulations ") vide different offer letters and tenure of the contracts was only for 89 days. The said period of work charge/daily basis was extended from time to time with certain breaks and lastly it was extended from 01.03.2020 to 25.05.2020 vide order dated 26.02.2020. The Petitioners after accepting the terms and conditions of their daily wages employment submitted their joining report. The specific terms in the employment offer, containi ng certain terms and conditions, are inserted which explicitly reveal that initially this offer of appointment was only for a period of 89 days which will automatically be terminated on expiry of stipulated period. It is more appropriate to reproduce one of the appointment letters of the Petitioners for clarity: "Your services are engaged as Sound Helper on work charge (daily wages) basis a Rs.579/- per day and Rs. 1001- as additional allowance per day as approved by the Board of Governors, Lahore Arts Council purely on temporary basis as a make shift/stop-gap arrangements for 89 days with immediate effect. Your services will automatically be terminated on expiry of stipulated period or on a notice by the Competent Authority".
Underlying is mine
8. I am of the considered view that the Petitioners, at the time of joining, have accepted all the terms and conditions of their contract employment, cannot resile from the same at a belated stage. I fortified my view seeking guidance from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled "Shahzad Ghohar v.
Government of Punjab and Aitchison College through its Board of Governor" (2018 PLC (C. S.) Note-1) in which it has been held as under: "It was also made specifically clear that the Employment Contract does not confer on the Appellant any claim/right to permanent employment in the College. In the above situation, the Appellant has himself admitted all the terms and conditions of his Employment Contract, he cannot claim his regularization from this Court rather has rightly been considered to be out of service on the expiry of his contract employment as settled by the parties under the terms of the Employment Contract"
9. This Court in case titled "Muhammad Mohsin Ismail v. Managin g Director Punjab Daanish Schools and 2 others" (2018 PLC (C.S.) 722) has also held as under: "The Respondents have invoked clause-4(b), terminated the services of the Petitioner with immediate effect entitling the Petitioner to receive one month's pay in lieu of the quit service as per terms and conditions, therefore, assertions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that no notice has been served upon the Petitioner , cannot sustain. The law on this point has been settled by the apex Court of the country in the cases of "Government of Balochistan, Department of Health through Secretary , Civil Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar and 43 others" (2005 SCMR 642) and "Major (R) Nisar Ali v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another"
10. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled "Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary , Government of Punjab and 3 others" (2017 PLC (C.S.) 488) has held as under: "the employee, after accepting terms and conditions of his contract employment had submitted his joining report.
Service of such employee could be terminated without assigning any reason. Employee had no right to claim extension in his contract period as a vested right. Behaviour of employee remained unsatisfactory towards his superior which resulted into his termination."
11. In case titled "Mubashar Majeed v. Province of Punja b and 3 others" (2017 PLC (C.S.) 940) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also held that "employee could not claim extensio n of the contract as a matter of right rather it was the prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or continue with the same by tending the contract."
12. It is an established principle that where employment is on c contract, there is a relationship of master and servant and in such like c cases the constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
Reliance is placed on "Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others"
(PLD 2011 SC 132), wherein it was held that "Employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited were governed by principle of "Master and servant" and in absence of statutory rules, constitutional petitions filed by employees were not maintainable". In Pakistan Defence Officer's case (2013 SCMR 1707 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "Where conditions of service of employees of a statutory body are not regulated by Rules/Regulations framed under the Statute but only Rules or Instructions issued for its internal use, any violation thereof cannot normally be enforced through writ jurisdiction and they would be governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant' . Similarly , the issue of maintainability of writ under Article 199 of the Constitution has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pakistan International Airline Corpora tion and others v. Tanveer-ur- Rehman and others" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 676) and has held as follows: "25. Thus, in view of discussion made hereinabove, we are persuaded to hold that although the appellant- Corporation is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation but since the services of the respondent-employees are governed by the contract executed between both the parties; as is evident from the facts narrated hereinabove, and not by the statutory rules framed under section 30 of the Act, 1956 with the prior approval of the Federal Government, therefore, they will be governed by the principle of Master and Servant."
12. (sic) In "Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others" (2013 SCMR 1383 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that where a service grievance was agitated by a person/employee who was not governed by statutory rules of service, constitutional petition is not C maintainable. The Division Bench of this Court in "Pakistan International Airline and others v. Noreen Naz Butt" (2017 PLC (C.S.) 923) has held that "the Appellant Pakistan International Airline has no statutory rules and the relationship betw een the Respondent and the Appellants is that of master and servant. It is an established principle that in such like cases the Constitutional petition is not maintainable".
13. Similar view was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as "Pakistan Airline Pilots Association and others v. Pakistan International Airline and another" (2019 SCMR 278) with the following observation: "As the terms and conditions of employment in PIAC are admittedly not governed by any statutory provision and the employees are amenable to the Rule of "Master and Servant", Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be invoked. Reliance is placed on PIA Corporation v. Syed Suleman Alam Rizvi (1996 SCMR 1185), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676) and Abdul W ahab and others v . HBL and others ( 2013 SCMR 1383 )."
14. Reliance in also placed on "Lt. Col. Rtd. Aamir Rauf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 3 others" (2011 PLC (C. S.) 654) and "Nadeem Ahmed v. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited and another" (2005 PLC (C. S.) 1447) . Recently , the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Miss Naureen Naz Butt v. Pakistan International Airlines through Chairman. PIA and others" (2020 SCMR 1625 ) by upholding the judgment of Division Bench of this Court "Pakistan International Airlines v. Naureen Butt" (2017 PLC (C.S.) 923) has held that "the established law is that a contract employee, whose period of contract employment expires by afflux of time, carry no vested right to remain in emplo yment of the employer and the Courts cannot force the employer to reinstate or extend the contract of the employee".
15. The counsel for the Petitioners has persistently put much emphasis that the Petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services as the Respondents have regularized similarly placed person who were appointed on daily wages/contract basis and in this way discriminatory treatment has meted out with them which is violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. While on the other hand, the stance of the Responde nts is that the Petitioners are not entitled to regularization as the previous daily wages/contract employees were regularized after scrutinizing each and every case while the Petitioners do not fall. It within the ambit of criteria prescribed in letter dated 31.10.2017.
It would be advantageous to reproduce the criteria referred to in aforesaid letter: "i. They are on roll being work charge/dai ly wages employees in Lahore Arts Council as well as Okara Arts Council and their salaries are disbursed through Bank. ii. They have at least satisfactory one year work charge/daily wages service in their credit. iv. They fulfill the requisite qualification/experience as prescribed in the service Regulations of Lahore Arts Council (Alhamra) Regulations, 2010 (amended). iv. At the time of their first deployment/appointment as work charge/daily wages employee they were within prescribed age limit as per Service Regulations including all relaxations granted by the Government at that time: v. The post against which they were engaged exists in the budget/service Regulations. vi. They shall not be allowed any service benefits of their previous work charge/daily wages service towards financial and seniority".
16. It is manifestly clear from the above -mentioned criteria that a person who is appointed to a post on work charge/daily wages must have one-year complete satisfactory service, must fulfil the qualification/experience and age limit as per the Regulations, the post for which he applied must exists in the budget/the Regulations. Record attached by the Respondents reveals that amongst the Petitioner , some do not fulfil the requirement of age limit, while others' work is not satisfactory and also there is service break in their employment which is mandatory in terms of Clause-II of the criteria, referred to above. More importantly , the extens ion in contracts was not granted to the Petitioner in terms of Rule 23(z) of the Regulations and in this connection, para 8 of the impugned order is of much relevance which reads as: "Due to Covid-19, the Government imposed Lock-down across the country from March, 2020 and inter-alia banned all types of cultural programmes, festiv als and stage dramas; resultantly no income was generated to the Government or the Lahore Arts Council. However , they were paid their monthly salaries till 30th June, 2020.
Moreover , the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department vide para 2(1/1 1) of Circular Letter No. FD.
SO(GOODS)44-4/2016 dated 27.08.2020 has clearly directed as under: "Contingent Paid Staff can be hired only in extremely emergent cases according to powers specified in delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 2016. However , departments shall remain within the budgetary allocations for the purpose under object head "A01277-Contingent Paid Staff and no re-appropriation shall be allowed/made without recommendation of the Austerity Committee".
17. From the Move it is quite clear that the Petitioners do not fulfill the criterion for the regularization of their service and it cannot be said that the Respondents have treated them indifferently or given discriminatory treatment to them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhw a through Chief Secretary and others v. Syed Sadiq Shah and others" (2021 SCMR 747) has dilated upon the issue of discrimination by holding that: "Article 25 of the Constitution, guarante es to every person the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The expression "equal before law" is a declaration of equality of all persons irrespective of gender , race, religion, colour , caste, creed, status and language etc, implying thereby the absence of any privilege in favour of any individual. The guiding principle of Article 25 is that all persons and things similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in respect of privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equality before law means that amongst equals should be equal and equally administered and that like should be treated alike. Hence what it forbids is discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. However , Article 25 does not forbid different treatment of un-equals. The rule is rather that alike should be treated equally and that unlike should be treated differently . As a matter of fact all persons are not alike or equal in all respects.
Application of the same laws or yardstick uniformly to all of them will, therefore, be inconsistent with the principal of equality . To avoid that situation laws must distinguish between those who are equals and to whom they must apply and those who are different and to whom they should not apply . In fact, identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality . So a reasonable classification or sub-cl assification is only not permitted but is necessary if society is to progress. It must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the authority .
Persons may be 'classified or further sub-classified into entities and such entities may be treated differently if there is a reasonable basis for such difference. Article 25 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. The classification however must not be arbitrary , artificial or evasive but must be based on some real and substantial bearing, a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.
Principle of equality does not mean that every law, policy matter , notification, administrative or executive order etc must have universal application to all the persons who by nature, attainment or circumstances are not in the same position".
18. In assessment of suitability of a particular nature of job and its scope in the context of particular employer the Courts cannot prescribe the eligibility or experience qualifications and work experience as these are matters of policy and best be left to the depar tment. As the matter in hand relates to the policy matter of the government/department, therefore, Court cannot interfere into it. It is not in the domain of the Courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be drafted.
The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary , offending the basic requirement of the Constitution. It was for the Department to decide how and in what manner the reservations should be made and such a policy decision normally would not be open to challenge subject to its passing the test of reasonableness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and others v. Aamir Hayat and others" (2019 SCMR 124) has held that "courts could not interfere in lawful exercise of discretion by the concerned departments and substitute lawful decisions of the departments, by their own". In case of "M. Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Asla m and others" (2013 SCMR 363) it was held that "An employer has the discretion to formulate appropriate policy viz. a. viz job qualification and criteria for various positions in line with its peculiar requirements and organizational structure hence no person had a vested right to be appointed on a post rather the authorities made a selection for the post as per criteria set out in Rules/policy and had to find the most suitable candidate for the job who could capably discharge the duties".
19. Moreover , the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot be relied upon being distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case as each and every case has its own merits.
20. In view of above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which otherwise has been passed aptly . Resultantly , II the instant petition stands dismissed.