ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Hearing of case

For hearing of main case

02-09-2021

Mr. Bakhshan Khan Mahar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Naich, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Through this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:

(a) To declare that petitioner is entitled to regularization o his service from the date of first appointment i.e. from 1.10.2007 and is also entitled to receive the salary for the period from 1.7.2012 to 13.5.2013 for the post of computer operator (BS-12).

(b) To direct respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of first appointment i.e. 1.10.2010 and also pay him the salary for the period 1.7.2012 to 13.5.2013 treating him as computer operator (BS-12).

(c) To award costs of the petition.

(d) To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 01-10-2007 on contract basis but was not being regularized, and thereafter, approached this Court and filed C. P. No. D-2804 of 2012, which was allowed vide judgment dated 14-05-2013, and a fresh appointment / regularization order was issued on 25-06-2013. According to him, the petitioner is entitled for his regularization vis-à-vis his retirement benefits and length of service from the date of his initial appointment, hence, his petition merits consideration and be allowed accordingly.

3. On the other hand, petitioner’s contention has been opposed by the learned AAG on the ground that the order of regularization issued pursuant to judgment of this Court is a fresh appointment and cannot be made effective retrospectively.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel as well as learned AAG and perused the record.

5. As to the regularization of the petitioner is concerned, there appears to be no dispute that this Court passed judgment dated 14-05-2013, whereby the petition was allowed and respondents were directed to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post on which he had been appointed and was working and discharging his duties. Insofar as the judgment as above is concerned, it was never challenged any further and has attained finality. The only question now before us is that whether his length of service is to be counted from the date of his contractual or earlier appointment; or from the date of his regularization order dated 25-06-2013 issued pursuant to the judgment of this Court. In this regard, we are fortified with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 2021 SCMR 767 Province of Punjab through Secretary Livestock and others v. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others, wherein the precise question was that whether the date of regularization of contract employees is the date of their initial appointment on contract basis or the date of their regularization, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal had allowed the appeals of the employees by giving effect to the regularization from the date of their initial appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 7 has been pleased to hold as under:

“7. The scheme of regularization is unnecessary for a civil servant (a regular employee) and has been introduced only to induct the contractual employees into regular service. The Regularization Policy provides for a special procedure whereby the cases of the contractual employees are considered for regularization on a case-to-case basis, keeping in view their performance and other qualifications. Regularization of a contract employee is, therefore, a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointment. A contractual employee for the first time becomes a civil servant. It is underlined that contractual employees enjoy no vested right to regularization (see Contract Appointment Policy) much less to be regularized from any particular date. The benefit of regularization extended to them under the Regularization Policy is prospective in nature and there is no legal justification to give it a retrospective application. Any such step would totally negate the purpose and significance of Contract Appointment Policy and leave no distinction between a contractual and a regular employee. This has been the tenor of the jurisprudence evolved by this court and reference can be made to judgment of a five-member Bench of this Court dated 29.1.2018, passed in Civil Review Petition No.471/2015 and unreported judgments dated 13.03.2010 passed in CP no. 318-L to 330-L of 2018 & dated 21.07.2020 passed in CP nos. 194-L/2020, etc. It is also important to underline that the consistent governmental policies on regularization have finally manifested themselves in the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 ("Act") which specifically provides for regularization from immediate effect. Therefore, there has been a consistent design behind the scheme of regularization and it has always been conceived from the date of regularization. We see no reason to upset this uniform governmental policy which has now received legislative support under the Act.”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that regularization of a contract employee is a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointment, hence, the benefit of regularization is always prospective in nature and there is no justification to give it a retrospective application.

7. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of this case and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out. Accordingly, the petition, being misconceived, is hereby dismissed.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit