IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

C.P No.D-06 of 2015

C.P No.D-850 of 2015

Before: Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput

Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi

Petitioners: Muhammad Ameen and others through Mr. Khan Muhammad Sangi, advocate

Respondents: Province of Sindh and others through Mr. Noor Hassan Malik, AAG

Date of hearing: 01.09.2022

Date of decision: 01.09.2022

O R D E R

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J: Through this common order, we intend to decide captioned petitions, in these petitions, petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerks, Naib Qasids, Chowkidars, and Sanitary Workers in Live Stock and Fisheries Department, Government of Sindh, on temporary basis with the condition that their services could be terminated at any time with or without notice. They approached this Court for cancellation of Office Order dated 26.02.2011, whereby services of petitioners were terminated by respondent No.2/ Director General, Live Stock Extension Sindh, Sukkur, with immediate effect on 26.02.2011. In addition to cancellation of Impugned office order dated 26.02.2011, they also seek regularization of their services.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that Respondent No.2 has cancelled appointments of the petitioners without issuing any show cause notice(s) or without giving them opportunity of hearing and subsequently in the year, 2013 petitioners came to know about their illegal termination, therefore, they maintained departmental appeals before Secretary, Live Stock and Fisheries Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi on 24.01.2013. He further contended that in similar situation other petitions were allowed by this Court.

3. On the other hand, learned AAG contended that petitioners were appointed on temporary basis and their services were terminated, therefore, no vested right has been accrued and present petitions are not maintainable as well.

4. It is matter of record that petitioners were appointed on temporary basis with a condition that their services could be terminated at any time without issuing notice to them and they were removed from services on 26.02.2011 and the captioned petitions were maintained on 31.12.2014, after lapse of three years and ten months, therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners was directed to satisfy the Court about laches as well as view laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others vs. Prof. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others reported in 2022 SCMR 897. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have preferred departmental appeals, therefore, directions may be given to Secretary, Live Stock and Fisheries Department, Government of Sindh, to decide their departmental appeals.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy us on the point of laches. Since by virtue of office order dated 26.02.2011, their services were already terminated and they are no more in service. It is matter of record that appointment orders were issued with a condition that their services can be terminated without issuing notice for termination. Moreover, they remained in service only for 5 months as they were appointed on 27.09.2010 and they were removed on 26.02 2011. Even Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue of regularization in its latest pronouncements particularly in a case of Province of Punjab (supra) wherein it has been held that employee has no automatic right to get his/her past service rendered on contract basis counted towards regular service or regularization and it is prerogative of the Executive, therefore, Hon’ble Supreme Court has not made any interference in such like cases. We are not convinced with learned council for petitioners to issue directions to respondents to decide their departmental appeals after lapse of 11 years. No vested right has been accrued, therefore, these petitions being devoid of any merits as well as on the s point of laches, are hereby dismissed.

JUDGE