Law: Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011

Section: 19,25

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 212,199,185(3)

Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011-------Rr. 19 & 25---Regularization of posts---Procedure---Vested right---Absence of approval of Finance Department---Provincial Government was aggrieved of direction issued by High Court to adopt special measures to regularize services of respondents / contract employees---Validity---Creation of new posts and change in employment status of respondents were decisions that fell squarely within the purview of R. 19 of Punjab Government Rules of Business Rules, 2011---Absence of Finance Department's approval for such decisions clarified the fact that there is no approval by Provincial Government---Posts were not approved for regularization---Employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right--Regularization requires a statutory or legal backing and in absence of such a framework, Courts cannot impose any obligation on Government---Mere passage of time or length of service does not give rise to a vested right to regularization--There was no approval by Cabinet and no approval by Finance Department--Matter of regularization was never placed before Cabinet therefore, no recommendations could create any right in favour of respondents / contract employees---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was allowed.Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808; Government of Balochistan v. Attock Cement Pakistan Limited 2024 SCMR 876; Mohsin Raza Gondal v. Safdar Mahmood 2025 SCMR 104 and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar v. Sher Aman 2022 SCMR 406 ref.Date of hearing: 28th November, 2024.JUDGMENTAYESHA A. MALIK, J.---This Civil Petition is directed against order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore (High Court) whereby the application for review of its order dated 05.10.2021, filed by the Petitioners, was dismissed.2.    The issue before the Court is the regularization of 236 posts held by the Respondents, who claim that their posts have been regularized since 2019 but the Petitioners have not actualized the regularization on the pretext that they lack funds for this purpose. Hence, they approached the High Court on…