IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Constitutional Petition No. D- 02 of 2019
Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chahdhry,
Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi,
Petitioners : Mohammad Bachal& another through
Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Abro Advocate.
Respondents : Secretary, Government of Sindh & another,
through Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, Additional
Advocate General Sindh.
Date of hearing :08.03.2023.
Date of decision :08.03.2023.
J U D G M E N T
Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J.- The petition is for regularization of service.
2. The Petitioners were appointed respectively as Chowkidar and Naib Qasid in BPS-01 by the erstwhile Executive District Officer (Education) [EDO], Shikarpur vide office orders dated 13.08.2007. Their appointments were made on contract basis for 3 years on the express term that on completion of their contract they shall stand terminated.
3. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
4. It is admitted by the Petitioners that their contract was extended only for 6 months and thereafter it was not renewed; and that in 2011, they applied to the Department for regularization of service but were declined. Since the contract of the Petitioners had expired in 2011, it is not their case that the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees), Act, 2013 was applicable to them.
5. It has since come to be settled law that even long and satisfactory service is no ground for regularization, and that an employee engaged adhoc or under a time-bound contract has no vested right to regularization. That is reiterated in Deputy Commissioner Upper Dir v. Nusrat Begum (2022 SCMR 964) and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Saeed ul Hasan (2021 SCMR 1376). It is also settled, as held in Province of Punjab v. Prof. Dr. Javed Iqbal (2022 SCMR 897) and Khushal Khan Khattak University v. Jabran Ali Khan (2021 SCMR 977), that continuity in service is a pre-condition to seeking regularization, and that while exercising constitutional jurisdiction the High Court cannot revive or renew expired contracts or alter the terms and conditions of an employee’s contract. More fundamentally, regularization of service cannot follow unless there is anexecutive policy or a statute that permits the same, so held in Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Saeed ul Hassan (2021 SCMR 1376), Deputy Director Finance & Administration, FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566) and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406). Therefore, when there is no executive policy or statute under which the Petitioners’ service could be regularized, this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ for regularization. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Qazi Tahir PA/*