| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1406 2021 SLD 1406 2021 SCMR 1045 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2020, decided on 22nd February, 2021, Date of hearing: 25th November, 2020 (J.R.) (Against the judgment Dated 30.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 4801-P of 2017 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Shumail Ahmad Butt, AG KP, Atif Ali Khan, Ad. AG KP, Barrister Qasim Wadood, Ad. AG KP, Irum Shaheen, DD, HED, Asif Khan, Litigation Officer, HED, Amin Jan, AD, Fisheries, Gulzar Mahmood, AD Fisheries KP, Engineer Falak Niaz, AD (Dost), Rajbar Khan, SDO,
Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2020, decided on 22nd February, 2021, Date of hearing: 25th November, 2020 (J.R.) (Against the judgment Dated 30.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 4801-P of 2017 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Shumail Ahmad Butt, AG KP, Atif Ali Khan, Ad. AG KP, Barrister Qasim Wadood, Ad. AG KP, Irum Shaheen, DD, HED, Asif Khan, Litigation Officer, HED, Amin Jan, AD, Fisheries, Gulzar Mahmood, AD Fisheries KP, Engineer Falak Niaz, AD (Dost), Rajbar Khan, SDO,
GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHErs
VS
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS
Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, (XVI of 2009)
Section: 2(b),3
(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act (XVI of 2009)--- ----Ss. 2(b) 3---Project posts---Contractual employees---Question as to whether project employees appointed to a project which was converted to the regular budget after the cut-off date of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 i.e. 24.10.2009, were eligible to be regularized under the relevant provisions of the said Act---Held, that contractual or adhoc employees appointed before 24.10.2009 i.e. the date of the commencement of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 (the 2009 Act), were eligible for regularization---However, in the present case, since the post against which the respondent was appointed, was converted to the regular budget in 2014, it was clear that the respondent fell outside the purview of the 2009 Act---Before the conversion of the post to the regular budget, the respondent was simply a project employee---Under S. 2(b) of the 2009 Act, project employees were categorically excluded from the benefit of regularization under S. 3 of the 2009 Act, therefore the said Act was clearly inapplicable to the respondent---Appeal was allowed and impugned of High Court was set aside. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Clear and consistent interpretation by Courts in accordance with law---Scope---Courts of law were required to interpret the law and could neither rewrite the law nor read into the law something which was not provided therein---No matter how sympathetic a Court may feel towards a litigant or a set of litigants, Courts were duty-bound and required by the Constitution to adhere to the letter of law and not decide cases based on subjective feelings of sympathy which could vary from person to person---Law and its interpretation must be clear and consistent which was precisely why the adherence to the law was insisted upon as it lent stability to the system and increased the confidence of citizens in the law and the legal system---Involvement of subjectivity had the potential to make dispensation of justice variable and uncertain which was an anathema to a system based upon laws. (c) Civil service---…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492