ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. Nos.D-1008/2014, 978/2014, 1359/2014,

1095/2014 & 1024/2014

________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature(s) of Judge(s)

________________________________________________________

Present:

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J.

1. Samiullah Khan & others (C.P. No.D-1008/2014)

2. Abdul Rasheed Joyo & others (C.P. No.D-978/2014)

3. Ms. Erum Yousuf (C.P. No.D-1359/2014)

4. Muhammad Rizwan Sharif (C.P. No.D-1095/2014)

5. Zohaib Hassan (C.P. No.D-1024/2014) ………. Petitioners

Versus

Federation of Pakistan

& another ………….. Respondents

21^st November, 2016.

M/s. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada & Syed Khalid Shah and Laiq Ahmed, Advocates for Petitioners.

Syed Danish Ghazi Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Shaikh Liaquat Hussain Standing Counsel.

-------------------------

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. – All the petitioners are employees of respondent No.2 and performing their duties on contract basis. They have approached this court for regularization of their services in view of the Cabinet Committee’s decision, Government of Pakistan as according to them despite considerable length of their services, they have not been considered for regularization by the respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the case of Pir Imran Sajid and others v. Managing Director/General Manager (Manager Finance) Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others reported in 2015 SCMR 1257 and argued that the hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan also directed that the services of employees should be regularized from the date of decision of Sub-Committee for regularization. The hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the regularization of contractual employees held as under:-

“Employing/retaining the employees in question on contract basis, instead of permanent basis was, thus, wholly mala fide, whimsical and unfair---No allegation of any misconduct or incompetence was made against the employees in question, rather they had been granted increments from time to time---Record showed that services of some other temporary/contract employees had been regularized by the Telephone Industries of Pakistan from time to time---Even otherwise the Federal Government which owned, controlled, managed and financed Telephone Industries of Pakistan, had directed the organization, through the concerned cabinet sub-committee to regularize the employees in question---Managing Director, Telephone Industries of Pakistan, did not heed to such direction, and such defiance was wholly illegal and mala fide---No justification existed for not making employment of employees in question permanent, and for keeping their entire career, rather livelihood exposed and susceptible to the whims of the authorities, which also hurt their dignity---Supreme Court directed that services of employees in question should be regularized from the date of decision of the sub-committee for regularization---Supreme Court observed that while discharging official functions, efforts should be made to ensure that no one was prevented from earning his livelihood because of unfair and discriminatory act on their part.”

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has referred to the comments in which though various legal objections have been raised but the learned counsel has specifically referred to paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 15. With reference to these paragraphs, learned counsel argued that issue of regularization was brought up by respondent No.2 in its 79^th meeting of the Board of Directors on 28.03.2012 in which decision of sub-committee of regularization was conveyed to respondent No.2, which was approved subject to law. The matter was referred to the sub-committee of regularization but it was not discussed in the meeting. Learned counsel also attached Minutes of Meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee of regularization of contract basis/daily wages employees in the Ministries/Division/Attached Departments/ Autonomous Bodies/Organizations held on 24.11.2011 in the Establishment Division. At page 77 under the heading of “Ministry of Commerce”, it is stated that the said Ministry presented regularization of 203 contract/daily wages employees and in the table of departments, the name of respondent No.2 is mentioned at Serial No.7.

4. Learned counsel further argued that the names of contract employees of respondent No.2 were referred to but same were not discussed in the Minutes of Meeting. He further argued that at this stage, respondent No.2 cannot regularize the employees, unless their cases are considered by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of regularization. We have also seen the copy of minutes of meeting and found that employees of various departments were considered but no discussion was made in respect to the contract/daily wages employees of Pakistan Re-Insurance Company Limited i.e. respondent No.2 in this case.

5. As a result of above discussion, respondent No.2 is directed to resubmit the names of the petitioners to the Cabinet Sub-Committee of regularization of contract/daily wages employees, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan to consider the names of all the petitioners in the light of the directives of the Prime Minister of Pakistan and forward their recommendation to respondent No.2 for further proceedings at their end. This exercise shall be completed within forty five (45) days. Copy of this order may be transmitted to learned Standing Counsel for onward communication of this order to the Establishment Division for compliance. All the petitions are disposed alongwith pending applications in the above terms.

JUDGE

Faizan/