- 
-.4
V
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ-UL-AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
Civil Appeals No.232, 244, 247, 261 and 282 of 2020
(Against Judgments mentioned in Schedule-1 of this
Judgment).
Civil Appeal No.232 of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
2020 
through Secretary Forest, Peshawar &
Others V. Sher Aman
Civil Appeal No.244 of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
2020 
through Chief Secretary KPK, Peshawar
& Others V. Naeem Khan & Others
Civil Appeal No.247 of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
2020 
through Secretary Health, Peshawar &
Others V. M. Kamran Khan & Others
Civil Appeal No.261 of Additional Chief Secretary, FATA,
2020 
Peshawar & Others V. Bilal Ahmed &
Another
Civil Appeal No.282 of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
2020 through Secretary Agriculture,
Livestock & Cooperative Department
Peshawar & Others V. Syed M. Iqbal &
Others
Mr. Shumail Ahmad Butt, AG KP
Mr. Atif Ali Khan, Ad AG KP
Barrister Qasim Wadood, Ad AG KP
Ms. Irum Shaheen, DD, HED
Asif Khan, Litigation Officer, HED
Amin Jan, AD, Fisheries
Guizar Mahmood, AD Fisheries KP
Engr. Falak Niaz, AD (Dost)
Rajbar Khan, SDO, PHE, KP
Sadullah, Asst. Secretary, BOR, KP
Faheem Ullah Khan, Sr. LO, KPPSC
Assad Ullah Khan, SO, P&D Deptt.
Amariatullah Qureshi, Dy. Secy. FDKP.
Mr. Shahid Kamal Khan, ASC
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR
(in CA No. 232 of 2020)
For the Appellant(s):
For the Respondent(s)
Qft4jA,peals No232, 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
2
Date of Hearing:
Mr. Khaled Rehman, ASC fin CA No.
244 of 2020)
Mr. Mukhtar Abmad Maneri, ASC (in
CA No. 247 of 2020)
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC (in CA No.
261 of 2020)
Mr. M. Asif Yousafai, ASC (in CA No.
282 of 2020)
25.11.2020
JUDGMENT
IJAZ UL AHSAN. J. - Through this single
Judgment, we intend to decide Civil Appeals (hereinafter
referred to as "CA") No. 232, 244, 247, 261 and 282 of 2020
as they involve a common question of law. 
I
2.
Through the instant Appeals, the Appellants have
challenged the judgments of different benches of the
Peshawar High Court mentioned in Schedule I of this
Judgment. The Respondents had, through their
Constitutional Petitions, challenged the decisions of the
I
Appellants to terminate the services of the Respondents from
their respective posts. Their Petitions were allowed, and the
Appellants were ordered to reinstate and regularize the
Respondents against their respective posts.
3.
The necessary facts giving rise to this us are that
the Respondents were appointed on contract basis in different
projects against different posts. Their services were extended
from time to time. They were subsequently terminated from
service on completion of the respective projects in which they
were appointed. They filed Constitutional Petitions to
challenge this action of the Appellants which were allowed
I
El 
çjjgjApoeals No.232. 244, 247 262 and 282 of 2020 
3
11
and, the Appellants were directed to reinstate and regularize
the Respondents in their respective posts. Certain other
Respondents then filed Constitutional Petitions for similar
treatment which were also allowed, and the Appellants were
ordered to treat the said Respondents at par with others who
had been regularized pursuant to the orders passed by the
High Court. Similarly, in CA No. 282 of 2020, the
Respondents were initially appointed on contract and his
services were regularized w.e.f. 01.07.09 vide order dated
04.02.10. The earlier order of termination of the services of
the said Respondents was withdrawn and they were employed
on a daily wage basis vide order dated 26.02.10. Aggrieved,
they approached the High Court. The High Court disposed of
their petition vide order dated 12.04.16 with direction to the
Appellants therein to reconsider the impugned order. Vide
order dated 31.10.16. Consequently, the Respondents in CA
282 of 2020 were given fresh appointments. They approached
the High Court once again by filing a Writ Petition which was
allowed, and the Appellants were directed to regularize the
Respondents from the date of their initial appointment on
01.07.09 vide order dated 04.02.10.
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide
order dated 09.03.2020 in the following terms:-
"The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa contends that all the Respondents in these
petitions were employed either on project posts or on contract
basis or were employees under Section 42 of the Companies
Act, 2017 and in no circumstances their services were to be
regularized. He further contends that in all impugned
judgments, the learned High Court has merely allowed writ
petitions on basis of similarly placed persons, but without at
all adverting to the facts and circumstances of each case
separately and without applying its mind to the same. He
0
, 
Civil Apaeals No.232, 244, 247, 261 and 282 of 2020 
4
U
adds that even the laws under which their appointments
were made were not adverted to. He submits that the
Respondents who are employees on projects or contract
employees or Section 42 employees were not liable to be
regularized and thus their regularization by the learned High
Court through the Impugned Judgment in these petitions was
altogether illegal. In support of the contentions, the learned
law officer has referred to a three-member judgment of this
Court dated 24.06.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 687 of
2014 (Government of Khyber, Agriculture, Livestock and
Cooperative Department through its Secretary and others v
Ahmad Din and another).
2.
We note that some of the petitions are time barred and
in one of the petitions even no condonation of delay has been
filed. The learned Law Officer states that such will be done
by the petitioners.
3.
The contentions raised by the learned Additional
Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa need consideration.
Therefore, subject to limitation, leave to appeal is granted in
these petitions to consider inter alia the same. The appeal
stage paper books shall be filed within a period of one month
with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if
any. As the matter relates to service, the office is directed to
fix the same expeditiously preferably after three months.
4.
In the meantime, operation of impugned judgment(s)
shall remain suspended."
5. Learned Additional Advocate General Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (hereinafter referred to as "AAG") appearing for
the Appellants contends that the Respondents were employed
on contract basis, in different projects. As such, they had no
automatic right to regularization. Therefore, the learned High
Court has erred in allowing them regularization on
sympathetic grounds which action has no legal basis. He
maintains that the provisions of the KP Regularization Act
2009 (hereinafter referred to as "2009 Act") did not apply to
the Respondents as the said Act specifically excluded project
employees. The Respondents were employed in projects and
had agreed to the terms and conditions of their contracts
when they were being appointed against their posts. At this
stage, they cannot claim regularization against project posts
because such posts were temporary in nature. He further
U
CivilAppeatsNo232. 244. 247, 261 and 282 of 2020 
5
contends that the Respondents in CA 244 and 247 of 2020
were employees of SRSP/PPHI which is a creation of a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") between Sarhad
Rural Support Corporation Limited, a company registered
under the erstwhile Companies Ordinance 1984 vide
registration certificate number 01.01.01 and the Respondents
being employees of the company are governed by the principle
of master and servant. Further, that the Company's project
was closed, and the Respondents did not have any vested
right to be regularized in service of the province, thereafter
6.
The Learned ASC for the Respondents on the other
hand submits that the Respondents were validly appointed to
their respective posts and as such, could not have arbitrarily
been terminated given that the Appellants were satisfied with
their performance. Learned Counsel further submits that
other similarly placed colleagues of the Respondents have
been regularized by the Appellants and there is no reason
why the Respondents should not be regularized. Lastly, it is
submitted that the Respondents have been against their
respective posts working to the entire satisfaction of their
employers and deserve to be regularized.
7.
We have heard the learned AAG and the learned
ASC for the Respondents. It is an admitted position that all
the Respondents were appointed on contract basis, in
different projects in KP. The issues which fall for
determination before this Court are as follows: -
Civil A ppeals No.232, 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020
I
(i)
Could the Appellants terminate the services
of the Respondents after the period of the
respective projects in which the Respondents
were appointed had elapsed?
(ii)
Were the Respondents in CA No. 244 and
247 governed by the principle of "Master and
Servant"?
(iii)
What is the effect of the terms and
conditions of the appointment orders of the
Respondents?
(iv)
What would be the effect of the withdrawal of
the regularization order of the Respondents
in CA No. 282 of 2020?
COULD THE APPELLANTS TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF
THE RESPONDENTS AFTER THE PERIOD OF THE
RESPECTIVE PROJECTS IN WHICH THE RESPONDENTS
WERE APPOINTED HAD ELAPSED
8. In CA No. 232 of 2020, the Respondent was
admittedly employed in the erstwhile N.W.F.P Forestry Sector
Project, Peshawar on purely contract basis. His appointment
on contract basis was subject to continuation of the project.
This is evident from the office order dated 06.02.97 issued by
the Conservator of Forests who was also the Director of the
said Project. The words "subject to continuation of the
project" clearly mean that the appointment of the Respondent
was to last till the life of the Project. A perusal of the
document dated 22.05.06 clearly establishes that the said
project was to close on 30.06.06 and the Respondent was
informed that his employment contract would expire
24.06.06. Keeping these facts and circumstances in mind, the
learned High Court could not have "adjusted" the said
1
, 
Civil Aovea?s No.232, 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
. 
7
Respondent against the permanent post of a Forester, which
was lying vacant in the Forest Department. Such posts are
required to be filled in a transparent manner, after due
advertisement, open competition, a level playing field for all
eligible candidates, the best and most qualified of them being
employed in accordance with a merit list prepared after
fulfilling all necessary testing, interview and short-listing
requirements. There is no concept of "adjusting" employees
against permanent posts without following the process
described above. The High Court cannot step into the shoes of
r
the appointing authority. When the High Court is exercising
jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, it cannot extend the scope of a
contract that has been signed by an employee as the same
goes against the spirit of the very concept of contract
employment. The conclusion in this regard reached by the
learned High Court is neither supported by law nor the
relevant rules and is patently erroneous. When an employee
accepts a post in a project, he is aware of the fact that the
project will come to an end on its completion or cessation of
its funding (as the case may be) and with that, his
employment will also come to an end. Forcing the
Government to "accommodate/ adjust" such employees is not
only a transgression of the powers vested with the High Court
under Article 199, but is also a burden on the Government
Exchequer which the court is not at liberty to place. There is
nothing in the order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the
competent authority which is illegal. We are therefore unable
'9
D CM? A ppeots No.232. 244. 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
3
U
to agree with the learned High Court that the Respondent in
CA No. 232 of 2020 should have been adjusted against a
permanent post, more so, when his employment had already
been terminated, in accordance with the terms and conditions
of his contract.
9. The Respondents in CA No. 261 of 2020 were
appointed in the project "FATA Urban Centre Project" by the
World Bank. The said Project was later wound up on
30.06.15, and, the Respondents were relieved from their
services. The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the
Respondents in CA 261 of 2020 contends that since the said
Respondents were appointed after a transparent and fair
process, they ought to have been adjusted against regular
posts created in the subsequently established Municipal
Committee of the erstwhile FATA. The learned High Court has
opined that the constitution of a fresh Committee for fresh
appointments would be "wastage of time and money" and that
the Respondents have a preferential right to serve in the
project till its life. We are unable to understand or agree with
these conclusions reached by the High Court. Firstly, it is not
the domain of the High Court to ascertain what and what
does not constitute wastage of resources. This goes against
the basic principle of separation of powers and entering the
domain of executive policy making which under the scheme of
our Constitution, falls in the domain of the executive. The role
of the courts is to interpret the law and delve in matters
involving policy issues. The learned High Court could not
civil Aooeats No. 232, 244, 247, 262 and 282 of 2020 
9
have assumed the role of the executive or a policy maker and
held that constituting a committee for fresh appointments
would have been "wastage of time and resources". If a private
organization or project, or the government thinks fit to
constitute a committee, the only interference which may be
warranted is in exceptional circumstances showing mala fides
and/or arbitrary exercise of power by any of the members of a
committee so constituted. The learned AAG has drawn our
attention to two letters dated 08.12.15 /26.01.16 respectively.
In the said letters, it has clearly been stated that recruitment
must be completed in a transparent and efficient manner and
in accordance with the prevailing rules/ regulations. It is
settled law that in order to join government service, proper
procedures have to be followed which may include inter alia
scrutiny by the Public Service Commission or any recruitment
committee and an open and competitive process. Depriving
other aspiring candidates of an opportunity to seek
employment is neither transparent, nor efficient. Even
otherwise, the letter dated 26.01.16 clearly states that under
the prevailing project policy, transfers/ adjustments could not
be done and, the Director LC}&DD, FATA Secretariat,
Peshawar categorically stated that the process of appointment
against approved posts be started afresh. We are unable to
understand how the learned High Court reached the
conclusion that it did, in the presence of settled law
repeatedly and consistently laid down by this Court that
contract employees have no vested right to be regularized.
The case law referred to by the learned High Court is
Civil Appeals No.232. 244, 247. 261 and 282o[2020 
10
distinguishable on facts as well as law and does not in any
manner help the case of the Respondents. The findings of the
learned High Court in this regard are therefore
unsustainable.
WERE THE RESPONDENTS IN CA NO. 244 AND 247
GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF "MASTER AND
SERVANT?
10.
The Sarhad Rural Support Program/Peoples
Primary Healthcare Initiative (hereinafter referred to as
"SRSP/PPHI") was created under a MoU between the Sarhad
Rural Support Corporation Limited, a limited liability
company registered under the erstwhile Companies
Ordinance 1984, vide notification dated 01.01.01. The
Respondents in CA No. 244 and 247 of 2020 were employed
against their respective posts in SRSP/PPHI. The
Respondents filed an application before the DSM of PPHI for
regularization of their temporary service. Ultimately, the
Respondents were regularized, however, their orders of
regularization were cancelled on the ground that under the
MoU, there was no provision for regularization of employees.
Aggrieved, they approached the High Court. Their Writ
Petition was allowed vide the impugned judgment and the
Appellants were directed to regularize the Respondents
against their respective posts.
11.
We have gone through the Agreement between the
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Department and
SRSP for the Provision of Primary Healthcare (hereinafter
referred to as "Agreement"). The Agreement states that SRSP
Civil A ppeals No.232. 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
11
is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance
1984 having its registered office at House No. 129, Street No.
08, Defence Officers Colony, Peshawar Cantt. The learned
AAG has submitted that the Respondents were employees of
a private company, were paid by it and were never on the
payroll of the Government. There is no provision in the MoU
for regularization of SRSP/PPHI's employees, which is why
the regularization orders of the Respondents were cancelled.
The said fact is supported by findings of the inquiry dated
15.07.16 wherein it has been stated that the order of the
District Health Officer, Peshawar dated 13.06.13 was beyond
his powers and not covered under the rules. The learned
AAG has stated that because of the findings in this inquiry,
order dated 18.08.16 was passed and the status of the
Respondents as civil servants which had been wrongly
conferred by an official who had no power or authority to do
so, was withdrawn and there was no illegality in such action.
Similarly, the Respondent in CA No. 247 of 2020 was
employed in SRSP as Chowkidar. He was relieved from his
services on 12.04.15. He filed a Writ Petition in the Peshawar
High Court which was allowed on the ground that since 
Ii
other similarly placed colleagues of the said Respondent had
been regularized, so should he.
12. It is an admitted fact that the Respondents were 
I
project employees, who were working for SRSP/PPHI which
is a creation of a MoU between the Government of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa and the Sarhad Rural Support Corporation
Cm/A ppeals No.232, 244, 247, 261 and 282 of 2020 
12
Limited. It was essentially an outsourcing exercise where
funds were to be provided by the Government in lieu of
services rendered by the company by hiring its own staff. For
all intents and purposes, it was an arms length transaction.
The appointment orders of the Respondents mention that
they were appointed on contract in the PPHI project, which
has not been denied by the Respondents' Counsel. The
learned High Court has held that since the Respondent in CA
fl
No. 244 of 2020 had been appointed on regular basis
through a Departmental Selection Committee, therefore, his
regular appointment could not be changed. We are unable to
agree with this conclusion. Firstly, the MoU is the foundation
on which the PPHI project was to be built. We have examined
the said MoU and find that there is no provision/ section
related to regularization of employees therein. Secondly, the
Appellants have corrected the wrong committed by them by
initiating an inquiry and after recording findings, cancelling
the regularization of the Respondents which they are
empowered to do. There was a mistake committed by the
DSM and it was promptly corrected by the Appellants by
issuing the order cancelling the regularization of the
Respondents. The learned High Court has erred in holding
that an inquiry was not conducted. The record shows that a
proper inquiry was conducted. A copy of the inquiry report
was sent to the DHO and DG Health Services vide letter
dated 15.07. 16. A Departmental Appeal was also filed by the
Respondents against orders passed on the basis of such
inquiry report. As such, the conclusions reached by the
Civil A ppeals No.232. 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
13
learned High Court in this regard are contrary to the record
and factually incorrect.
13. Even otherwise, the Respondents were
contractual employees of a project which was governed by a
MoU. They were employees of a corporate entity. In our
opinion, they were governed by the principle of "Master and 
II
Servant". The stance taken by the learned High Court is
overly simplistic and against the principles of employment
law. It is the prerogative of the employer to decide the terms
and conditions of an employee's contract. It is not for the
court to step into the shoes of the employer and force him to
employ someone for whom there is no available post and 
II
even if there is one, without following due process, procedure
and criteria. The relationship is governed by the principle of
master and servant and except in exceptional
circumstances; disputes arising there from are beyond the
jurisdiction and parameters of the powers of the High 
H
Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan. We have asked the learned ASC for
the said Respondents to point us to any rule creating a
right to regularization of the Respondents. He has been
unable to do so. It is trite that regularization cannot take
place without statutory backing. The Respondents, being 
H
contract employees, were governed by the principle of
"Master and Servant" and could not approach the High
Court to seek redressal of their grievances. Reliance in this
regard is placed on Government of Khgber 
:1
Civil A ppeals No.232. 244. 247. 261 and 282 of2020 
14
Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board v. Raheel All
Gohar (2021 PLC(CS)N 125 Supreme Court) where in it
was held that:-
"In addition to these issues, we also find ourselves at
odds with the fact that the present Respondents
approached the High Court in its writ jurisdiction to seek
reqularization without there being any law conferring a
right that may have been denied and was sought to be
enforced by way of a petition under Article 199 of the
Constitution. It is settled law that as contractual
employees, the relationship between the Respondents and
the A ppellant is governed by the principle of master and
servant. In these circumstances, the Respondents did not
have the right to approach the High Court to seek
redressal of their grievances relating to regularization. As
noted above, in case of a contractual dispute the
Respondents could have sought appropriate redressal of
their grievances before a competent court of law. However,
only by virtue of being contract employees, no automatic
right of regularization has accrued in their favour."
(Underlining is ours)
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS OF THE
14. Regularization is a policy matter which necessarily
requires backing of the law. In the absence of any law, policy
or rules, an employee cannot knock on the door of the High 
II
Court for regularization of his/her services. The learned High
Court, despite the fact that there is ample material on the
record that establishes that the Respondents had agreed to
the terms and conditions of their contracts, regularized the
services of the Respondents. The Project Policy governing the
projects in which the Respondents were working clearly and
unequivocally states that after the said projects come to an
end, employees working in the said projects would have no
right to claim regularization. The same stipulation is made in
the service contracts of the Respondents. That being the case,
the order of regularization lacked any legal basis or
foundation. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of
Civil A ppeals No.232, 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
15
Khushal Khan Khattak Universit y through Vice
Chancellor and Others v. Jabran AU Khan and Others
(2021 SCMR 977) wherein, in an identical situation, this
court held as follows:-
"The learned Counsel for the Respondents has not been
able to show us any law which conferred a right upon the
Respondents to be regularized. The assertion of the learned
ASC that since others were regularized, the Respondents
should also be regularized despite there being no statutory
basis has not impressed us. As noted above, the
Respondents could not claim regularization as a matter of
right. Even otherwise, all the appointment orders of the
Respondents clearly state that they would have no right to
claim regularization. Therefore, the Respondents cannot
disown the terms and conditions of their own employment
contracts and claim permanent em ployment when at the
vent' inception of their em ployment they had accepted
contractual employment on the conditions that the y would
have no right to claim regularization". (Underlining is ours)
15.
The aforementioned excerpt makes it amply clear
that the High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction cannot
alter the scope of the terms that have been agreed upon by
the parties and put an additional burden upon the employer.
At best, a contract employee can approach the appropriate
forum for recovery of damages against an employer for breach
of contract, if a case is made out against the employer. The
High Court cannot in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction
assume the role of the appointing authority and direct
employers to amend/alter terms and conditions in favour of
employees which have been agreed upon by the said
employee.
16.
It is not denied by either side that all of the
Respondents were appointed on temporary posts as
stipulated in their employment contracts. We note that the
learned High Court has not adverted to this aspect of the
Civil A ppeals No.232, 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
16
case and has simply applied the principle of "similarly placed
employees" to grant relief to the Respondents. It has
specifically been mentioned in the appointment orders of the
Respondents that they cannot claim regularization and
further, that they are employed on contract for a specific
period of time. In this view of the matter, the learned High
Court has incorrectly applied the law to the cases of the
Respondents. We find the view of the learned High Court is
neither supported by the law nor the policy of regularization
and is patently erroneous. Further, it is not in consonance
with the settled principles of law on the subject and is
therefore unsustainable.
17. The Respondents have themselves conceded that
they were employed in different projects on temporary basis
This fact has been admitted before us. The employment of
the Respondents was governed by the Project Policy which
specifically provides that project employees cannot claim
regularization and that the posts in questions would be filled
per the rules of the KPPSC or the DSCs. We are therefore of
the view that the learned High Court has erred in law in
ignoring the Project Policy and ordering regularization of the
Respondents on the basis of vague theories without relying
on or even identifying any statutory instrument which may
have created a right in their favour. Discretionary
Jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be
exercised in a vacuum. It must be grounded on valid basis,
showing violation of specific and enforceable legal or
Civil A ppeals No.232. 244. 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
17
constitutional rights. The discretion must be exercised in a
structured and calibrated manner with due regard to
parameters put in place by the Constitution as well as this
Court. The impugned judgments are unfortunately lacking
the alorenoted factors and are found to be unsustainable.
WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF THE WITHDRAWAL
OF THE REGULARIZATION ORDER OF THE
RESPONDENTS IN CA 282 OF 2020?
18.
The Appellant in CA No. 282 of 2020 was
appointed in the project known as Expansion of Breed
Improvement Service in KP. Subsequently, the said project
was closed on 30.06.09 and as per the project policy of 2008,
the Respondent was issued one month prior notice vide order
dated 26.05.09. The project was subsequently converted to
the regular budget vide notification dated 27.01.10 w.e.f.
01.07.09. The Respondent's services were regularized w.e.f.
01.07.09 vide order dated 04.02.10, however, the said
regularization order was cancelled and the Respondent was
appointed on daily wage basis vide order dated 26.02.2010.
Ultimately, the Respondent was given fresh appointment on
regular basis pursuant to an order of the Peshawar High
Court vide order dated 31.10.16. The Respondent filed a Writ
Petition, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment and
the learned High Court ordered regularization from the date
of initial appointment.
19.
We are unable to agree with the conclusions
reached by the learned High Court in the impugned
judgment that he was entitled to be regularized from the date
• 
Ciud Appeals No.232. 244, 247. 261 and 282 of 2020 
18
of his initial appointment on contract basis. It is settled law
that regularization requires backing of law, rules or policy. In
absence of any of the same, an employee cannot claim
regularization. The learned High Court has regularized the
Respondent w.e.f. 01,07.2009 and has revalidated the office
order dated 04.02.2010. The High Court lacks the power to
pass an order of this nature, for the simple reason that the
order on which the learned High Court has placed reliance to
regularize the Respondent has been cancelled. The effect of
such cancellation is that the said order is no more in the
field. We have examined the order dated 12.04.16 passed in
WP No. 501-P/2013 on which the learned Counsel for the
said Respondents has placed reliance. There is nothing in
the order directing the Appellants to regularize the
Respondents from 01.07.09. The only direction in the said
order is to grant personal hearing to the Respondents. The
Appellants complied with the said order and offered fresh
appointment on the basis of the order dated 31.10.16.
Nothing has been shown to us which could establish any
illegality in the said order. The learned High Court has
transgressed its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to revive a document
which is otherwise dead, and confer rights on the
Respondents which otherwise do not exist either in law or in
fact and that too in retrospective effect.
20. 
The impugned judgments of the learned High
Court proceed on erroneous grounds have jurisdictional
Civil A ppeals No.232. 244, 247. 267 and 282 of 2020 
19
II
errors and are suffering from legal defects which warrant
interference of this Court. The learned Counsel for the
Respondents has been unable to persuade us to endorse
the view taken by the learned High Court which was found
to be legally and factually unsustainable.
21. For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are
allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgments listed below
in Schedule-I are set-aside.
SCHEDULE-1
COURT
Peshawar High
Court, Peshawar
Peshawar High
Court, Peshawar
Peshawar High
Court, Peshawar
Peshawar High
Court, Peshawar
Peshawar High
Court, Peshawar
APPEAL 
DATE
Civil Appeal No.232 of 2020 17.02.20 15
Civil Appeal No.244 of 2020 11.01.20 17
Civil Appeal No.247 of 2020 12.04.20 14
Civil Appeal No.261 of 2020 125.10.2017
Civil Appeal No.282 of 2020 108.11.2018
Announced in Open Court ont%.ULtflt at Islamabad
Hans LC/*
Not Approved for Reporting
T