| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3063 |
Peshawar High Court
W.P No.5552-P/2025
Presented By: (INAM ULLAH KHAN) JUDGE
For petitioner(s): Mr. Iftikhar Ali, Advocate. For respondent(s): Mr. Ihsan Ullah, Advocate & Mr. Akbar Yousuf Khalil, DAG. Date of hearing: 13.05.2026.
W.P No.5552-P/2025
Presented By: (INAM ULLAH KHAN) JUDGE
For petitioner(s): Mr. Iftikhar Ali, Advocate. For respondent(s): Mr. Ihsan Ullah, Advocate & Mr. Akbar Yousuf Khalil, DAG. Date of hearing: 13.05.2026.
Muhammad Usman S/O Jamroz Khan R/O Swati Phattak, Mohallah Umeed Abad No.01, Peshawar.
VERSUS
Cantonment Board through its Executive Officer, Peshawar Cantt & Others.
Law: Cantonments Act, 1924
Section: 280(2)(c)
Law: Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954
Section: 199
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section:
Tagline Daily-wage or contractual engagement does not confer a vested right to regularization or reinstatement in the absence of statutory backing or specific policy. Summary The Peshawar High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former daily-wage employee of the Cantonment Board Peshawar who challenged the termination of his services and sought regularization. The petitioner, appointed as a Gardener in 2016, argued that his long service and the regularization of other colleagues entitled him to permanent status. The court held that daily-wage, contractual, or contingent employment does not create a vested right to regularization or continuation in service, regardless of the length of employment. It emphasized that regularization is a policy matter within the executive's domain, requiring specific statutory backing or a notified policy, both of which were absent. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent department was under a recruitment ban imposed by the Ministry of Defence. Since administrative decisions based on financial constraints and "HR rationalization" do not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be mala fide or patently illegal, the court found no grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. ORDER; INAM ULLAH KHAN, J.- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and propriety of order dated 11.07.2025, passed by respondent No.02 i.e., Director Military Lands & Cantonment, Peshawar Region, Peshawar Cantt, whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against termination of his services was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts forming basis of the instant petition are that the petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Serviceman/Gardener on 29.09.2016 under Cantonment Board Peshawar. According to the petitioner, his services were governed by the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 framed under Section 280(2)(c) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and that during his service tenure no complaint whatsoever was ever communicated against him. It is the case of the petitioner that owing to his satisfactory performance and good…