IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 936 & 937 OF 2020 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 07.04.2020 passed by 
the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitutional Petition Nos. 
D-5850 & D-5851 of 2018) 
 
M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd  
 
(In both cases) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
Zeeshan Usmani etc 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 936/2020) 
Saima Athar etc   
 
 
 
 
(In CA 937/2020) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellant: 
Mr. Asim Iqbal, ASC 
 
(In both cases)  
 
 
For Respondent (1): 
Malik Naeem Iqbal, ASC (Islamabad) 
Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, AOR (through 
video link from Karachi) 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
18.02.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through these 
appeals under Article 185 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the appellant has called in question the legality of 
the impugned consolidated judgment dated 07.04.2020 passed by 
the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby the Constitutional 
Petitions filed by the respondents were disposed of and the 
appellant department was directed to regularize them in service.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that 
respondents No. 1 in both the appeals were appointed in the 
appellant Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd on contract basis vide 
order dated 14.11.2012. They remained working on contract until 
31.12.2017 but were not regularized and their contract stood 
terminated on the said date i.e. 31.12.2017. It appears from the 
record that the appellant had framed a policy i.e. Uniform 
Recruitment and Promotion Policy for regularizing the services of 
contract employees on the basis of certain criteria. Against the said 
policy, some of the colleagues of the respondents approached the 
Civil Appeal Nos. 936 & 937 of 2020 
2
High Court of Sindh for their regularization by filing Constitutional 
Petition Nos. D-3759 & S-4422 of 2017 which were allowed and the 
appellant department was directed to regularize them in service. 
This judgment was upheld by this Court vide order dated 
12.03.2018 passed in Civil Petition Nos. 67-K & 68-K of 2018. To get 
the same relief, the respondents also filed Constitutional Petitions 
No. D-5850 & D-5851 of 2018, which have been disposed of vide 
impugned judgment and the appellant has been directed to 
regularize the respondents without any discrimination. Hence, these 
appeals by leave of the Court.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended 
that the appellant Sui Southern Gas Company Limited has no 
statutory rules of service and the relationship between the company 
and the respondents is governed by the principle of ‘master and 
servant’; that contractual employment does not confer any vested 
right in favour of a servant to seek regularization in service; that the 
contract of the respondents had ended on 31.12.2017 and after 
eight months of the termination of contract, they have filed 
Constitutional Petitions, which were not maintainable.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 
No. 1 in both the appeals has contended that some of the colleagues 
of the respondents, who were similarly placed, have been 
regularized in service but the same relief has been denied to the 
respondents, which amounts discrimination in law, therefore, the 
learned High Court has rightly ordered their regularization. In 
support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the case of 
Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs. Secretary Establishment Division (1996 
SCMR 1185).  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have 
perused the case record.  
6. 
 
Admittedly, the respondents were contract employees 
and their relationship was governed by the principle of ‘master and 
servant’. This Court in a number of cases has held that contract 
employees have no vested right to claim regularization. This Court in 
the case of Government of KPK, Workers Welfare Board Vs. Raheel 
Ali Gohar (2020 SCMR 2068) has categorically held that contractual 
employees, who are governed by the principle of ‘master and 
Civil Appeal Nos. 936 & 937 of 2020 
3
servant’ do not have the right to approach the High Court in its 
Constitutional jurisdiction to seek redressal of their grievances 
relating to regularization. The only question which needs to be seen 
in the present case is whether the respondents deserve the same 
treatment, which was meted out to their colleagues. We have been 
apprised that the contract of the ex-colleagues of the respondents 
was terminated somewhere in June, 2017, against which they 
approached the High Court. Upon notice issued by the High Court, 
the department issued letter of termination, which was suspended 
by the High Court through an interim order and ultimately, the said 
writ petitions were allowed by the High Court. This clearly shows 
that at the time of allowing of the writ petitions, the said contractual 
employees/colleagues of the respondents were in service. However, 
admittedly in the present case the contract of the respondents was 
terminated on 31.12.2017 and they filed the impugned writ petitions 
on 11.08.2018 after eight months of their termination. The 
regularization of the respondents is not part of the terms and 
conditions of service because for that purpose statutory rules are 
required and admittedly there are no statutory rules of the 
appellant. We are of the view that the learned High Court could not 
have ordered regularization of the respondents without reinstating 
them in service, which was clearly not possible keeping in view the 
fact that at the time of filing of the writ petitions, there was no 
relationship between the appellant and the respondents because 
they were no longer in service. In the case of the colleagues of the 
respondents, there was continuity in service but the same is lacking 
in the instant case. This Court in Naureen Naz Butt Vs. Pakistan 
International Airlines (2020 SCMR 1625) while relying on earlier 
judgments of this Court has held as under:- 
 
“Thus, the establish law is that a contract employee, 
whose period of contract employment expires by afflux 
of time, carry no vested right to remain in employment 
of the employer and the Courts cannot force the 
employer to reinstate or extend the contract of the 
employee.” 
 
 
7. 
 
So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the 
respondent on Hameed Akhtar Niazi supra case is concerned, we 
have noted that the ratio in Hameed Akhtar Niazi's case was that 
Civil Appeal Nos. 936 & 937 of 2020 
4
where a Tribunal or Court decides a point of law relating to terms 
and conditions of service of civil servants which governs not only 
those who litigated but also those who have not resorted to any 
legal proceedings, then irrespective of this they too become entitled 
to the same benefit. Hameed Akhtar Niazi's case therefore extends 
benefit to civil servants who were not party to the litigation and the 
entitlement of benefit granted to the litigating civil servants is so 
common that it is also extendable to those who have not litigated, 
therefore, they too can legitimately claim the same irrespective of 
the fact that they were not party to the litigation. However, in the 
present case, the situation is altogether different. In the present 
case, the respondents went to the High Court eight months after 
termination of their contract, therefore, they were no longer in 
service, which could have entitled them to claim the same relief as 
meted out to their colleagues.  
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we allow these 
appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of 
Sindh, Karachi dated 07.04.2020.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
18th of February, 2021 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram