| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1338 2025 SLD 1338 = 2025 LHC 3368 = 2025 PLC 1029 |
Writ Petition No.52251 of 2022
Anwaar Hussain, J.
Date of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Petitioner by: Ch. Imran Arshad Naro, Advocate. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Dhudhi, Advocate. Petitioner in connected W.P. No.3447 of 2023 by: Mr. Safdar Hussain Tarar, Advocate.
Respondent by: Hafiz Muhammad Latif Khawaja, Additional Advocate General. along with Mr. Adnan Ali, Law Officer.
Tariq Mehmood Aamir
VS
Government of the Punjab
Law:
Section:
Case Summary: Regularization Denied
The petitioners, initially appointed on contract in 2007, sought regularization of their services from the date of a government notification (10.11.2010) after being later regularized in 2022. They argued they deserved seniority and benefits from 2010, referencing earlier court decisions. However, the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, citing Supreme Court precedent (Dr. Javed Iqbal case, 2021 SCMR 767), stating that regularization is prospective, not retrospective, and treating it otherwise would undermine the Contract Appointment Policy and infringe on rights of existing civil servants.
The question before this Court is whether the date of regularization of the petitioners should be considered as 10.11.2010?the date of the notification. Held: While placing reliance on the dicta laid down in case reported as Province of Punjab through Secretary Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others (2021 SCMR 767), both regular and contractual employees are governed by two separate and distinct Legal Frameworks?Contractual appointments are governed by specific terms and conditions distinct from those applicable to the regular civil servants. Therefore, allowing the contract employees to claim seniority from the date of notification would infringe upon the rights of existing regular civil servants, disrupting established hierarchies and entitlements. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the date of the regularization cannot be the date of the regularization policy envisaged under the notification (i.e., 10.11.2010) as any such step would negate the purpose and significance of the Contract Appointment Policy and will leave no distinction between a contractual and a regular employee as held in the case of Dr. Javed Iqbal supra and direction cannot be issued to the respondents to decide the applications of the petitioners against the settled legal position.
Key Legal Reference
Case Relied Upon: