IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT;
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
NT k
(Against the judgment dated 27.09.2026, 17.07.2018 and
14.11.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ
Petitions No. 767-P, 1674-P of 2026 and 3108-P of 2018).
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary
Public Health Engineering, Peshawar and others.
(in CA .239/2020)
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief
Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others.
(in CA .2 74/202 0)
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief
Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others.
(in CA .283/2020)
.Appellant(s)
Versus
Abdul Manan and others.
(in CA .239/2020)
Ijaz Ali Shah and others.
(in CA.27412020)
Muhammad Nawaz and others.
(in CA .283/2020)
...Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Shumail Abmad Butt,
A.G. KP.
Mr. Atif All Khan, Addl. A.G. KP. 
.4
Barrister Qasim Wadood,
Addl. A.G. KP.
Mr. 1mm Shaheen, DD. HED.
Mr. Asif Khan, Litigation Officer, 
.4
I-lED.
Mr. Amin Jan, AD, Fisheries, KP.
Mr. Guizar Mahmood, A.D.
Fisheries, KP.
Engr. Falak Niaz, AD (Dost).
Rajbar Khan, SDO, PHE, KR
Mr. Saadullah, Asstt. Secretary,
BOR, KP.
U
_
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 23 9, 274 AND 283 OF 2020 
2
For the Respondent(s):
Date of Hearing:
Mr. Faheem Ullab Khan, Sr. Law
Officer, KPPSC.
Mr. Assad UIlah Khan, SO, P&D,
Department.
Mr. 
Amanatullat 
Qureshi,
Deputy 
Secretary, 
Finance
Department, KP.
Mr. Khaled Rahman, ASC.
(in CA.27412020)
Mr. M. Ijaz Khan Sabi, ASC.
(in CA .283/2020)
N.R.
(in CA.23912020)
25.11.2020 (Judgment Reserved)
JUDGMENT
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.- Through this single
judgment, we intend to decide Civil Appeals No. 239, 274 and
283 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "CA") as they involve a
common question of law.
2. Through the instant appeals, the Appellants have
sought to challenge the judgments of the Peshawar High
Court, Peshawar dated 14.11.18 passed in Writ Petition No.
3108-P/2018, 17.07.18 passed in Writ Petition No. 1674-
P12016 and 27.09.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 767-
P/2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgments").
Through the impugned judgments, the Respondents had
challenged the action of the Appellants to not regularize them.
Their respective petitions were allowed, and, the Appellants
were ordered to regularize the Respondents in their respective
posts.
q
CJVIL APPEALS NO239, 274 AND 283 012020 
3
3.
The brief facts giving rise to this Us are that the
Respondents in CA 239 of 2020 were appointed against
different posts on a contract basis. They were subsequently
regularized with effect from 2008 and not from the dates of
their respective initial appointments. The Respondents in CA
283 of 2020 were appointed as Office Assistant, Typist, and
Naib Qasid. Respondent No. Olin CA 283 of 2020 was later
promoted out of turn as Settlement Tehsildar in 2009 and
later on, was demoted, because the correct mechanism to
appoint him as provided in Section 7 of the Civil Servant
Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1989, was not followed. The
Respondents in CA 274 of 2020 were appointed in the project
known as "Capacity Building Phase-IT" and, after the expiry of
the said project, were relieved. All of the Respondents filed
their respective writ petitions before the learned High Court, 
Ii
which were allowed. The Appellants are aggrieved and have
approached this Court. 
J
4.
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court
ride order dated 09.03.2020 which is reproduced below
for ease of reference:
"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. 
:1
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 and every case separately and without 
U
applying its mind to the same. He adds that even the
laws under which their appointments were made
CD/IL APPEALS NO.239, 274 AND 283 OF 2020 
4
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 fir the
same expeditiously preferably after three months.
4. In the meantime, operation of impugned judgment(s)
shall remain suspended."
S. The Learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber
PaXhtunkliwa (hereinafter referred to as "KP") contends that
the Respondents in CA's 283 and 274 were project employees
with no right to regularization. He has further argued that the
Respondents being project employees are not covered under
the HIP Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the "2005 Act") because the 2005 Act
specifically excludes project employees from its purview,
Further, that the HIP (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009
(hereinafter referred to as the "2009 Act") also specifically
excludes project employees from its application, arid, as such,
the Respondents are not covered under the 2009 Act. He adds
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 239,274 AND 283°F 2020
that the Respondent in CA 239 of 2020 was appointed on a
stop-gap arrangement which is not covered for regularization
under Section 19 of the 2005 Act. As such, the High Court
erroneously held that the judgment rendered in W.P
854/2000 applied to the said Respondent's case because the
said judgment applied to employees of District Swat only. He
further submits that, whenever a position is advertised, it has
to be filled alter following correct procedure and formalities.
As such, the Respondents could not have been arbitrarily
appointed against their respective posts without following the
procedure of transparent appointment or, the procedure
provided by the KP Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as "KPPSC")
6. The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the
Respondents argued that other similarly placed employees
were regularized whereas the Respondents were not, as such,
this amounts to discrimination on part of the Appellants
which is impermissible under the law. He further argued that
all Respondents were validly appointed and, the Appellants
could not relieve them from their positions arbitrarily when
they have regularized other similarly placed employees. He
further submits that the Respondents in CA 239 of 2020
should have been regularized from the date of their initial
appointment as opposed to 2008. Since the Respondents had
been working against their respective posts before the
promulgation of the 2005 Act, they ought to have been
treated as civil servants and thus, regularized from before
GB'S. APPEALS NO.239.274 AND 283 OF 2020
04.11.92. He adds that not extending benefits to the
Respondents in CA 239 of 2020 from 04.11.92 amounts to an
illegality when the same benefits have been extended to other
employees who stood on the same footing.
7. We have heard the learned AAG and also the
learned Counsel for the Respondents. The questions which
fall before this Court for determination are as follows:-
(i) Could the Respondents be regularized under
the 2009 and 2005 Acts;
(ii) Could the Respondents in CA 239 of 2020 be
regularized with effect from an earlier date as
opposed to 2008.
COULD THE RESPONDENTS BE REGULARIZED UNDER
THE 2009 AND 2005 ACTS?
8. The learned AAG submits that the 2009 Act was
inapplicable to all of the Respondents because they were
project employees. To examine this issue, Section 3 of the
2009 Act is reproduced as under for ease of convenience:-
"Regularization of services of certain employees.----
All employees including recommendees of the High Court
appointed on contract or ad-hoc basis and holding that
post on 31st December, 2008 or till the commencement of
this Act shall be deemed to have been validly appointed
on regular basis having the same qualification and
experience for a regular post:
Provided that the service promotion quota of all
service cadres shall not be affected."
The word employee has been defined in Section 2(b) of
the 2009 Act supra which is produced as under:-
" "employee" means an adhoc or a contract employee
appointed by Government on adhoc or contract basis or
second shift/night shift but does not include the
employees for project post or appointed on work charge
-fl
CIVIL APPEALS NO.239, 274 AND 283°F 2020 
7
basis or who are paid out of contingencies;" (Underlining
is ours)
A bare perusal of the aforenoted provision of the 2009
Act reveals that, to be regularized under the 2009 Act the
employee in question may be an ad hoc or a contract
employee who must be appointed by the Government. There
are three categories of employees who cannot take benefit of
Section 3 supra and claim regularization. First, project
employees, that is, employees who are appointed against a
project post. Whenever the said project comes to an end
unless otherwise provided, the posts in the said project too
come to an end and all appointees stand relieved. Second,
employees appointed on a work charge basis. Third, those
employees who are paid out of contingencies. The last proviso
is perhaps there because funds for contingencies are limited
and mostly lime-bound. As such, whenever the contingent
funds run out, employees may be relieved, by following the
proper procedure.
9. It is an admitted fact that the Respondents in CA
274 of 2020 were project employees. Section 2(b) of the 2009
Act specifically excludes project employees from its purview,
therefore, by no stretch of the imagination could the learned
High Court have read into the 2009 Act what it does not
specifically provide. When the intent of the legislature is I
manifestly clear from the wording of the statute, the rules of
interpretation require that such law be interpreted as it is by 
Li
assigning the ordinary English language and usage to the
words used, unless it causes grave injustice which may be
--------------ii
CA'iL APPEALS NO.239, 274 AND 2830? 2020 
8
irremediable or leads to absurd situations which could not
have been intended by the legislature. Only then, the Court
may see the mischief which the legislature sought to remedy
and interpret the law in a manner that meets the intent of the
legislature. We are therefore of the view that the conclusion to
this effect reached by the High Court is quite erroneous and
unsustainable in law.
10. The learned High Court has held that the
Respondents were fully covered by Section 19(2) of the 2005
Act. For ease of reference, the relevant portion of Section
19(2) is reproduced as under: -
"A person though selected for appointment in the
Prescribed manner to a service or post on or after the 1st
day of July 2001, till the commencement of the said Act,
but appointed on contract basis, shrill, with effect from
the commencement of the said Act, be deemed to have
been appointed on regular basis." (Underlining is ours)
It has been argued by the learned AAG that the posts
against which the Respondents were appointed are
specifically excluded from the application of Section 19 and
consequently, they could not have been regularized. A bare
perusal of the alorenoted provision shows that anyone who
wishes to avail the benefit of Section 19 has to be appointed
in the prescribed manner. What this effectively means is that
an incumbent has to go through the process of selection and
appointment which consists of advertisement, open
competition, a level playing field for all, and transparency and
other processes followed by the Federal or Provincial Public
Service Commission. Admittedly, none of the Respondents
. 
t
CIVIL APPEALS Na 239, 274 AND 283 OF 2020 
9
were appointed through the said Commission or the
alorenoted processes as is evident from their appointment
orders, and, were initially appointed on contract. As such, the
Respondents cannot claim that they were covered under the
said provision of the law unless they prove that they went
through the process of the KP Public Service Commission or
equivalent or had come through the processes alluded to
above and, were then appointed against their respective
posts.
11. Even otherwise, the class of employees to which
the Respondents belong has been specifically excluded from
the definition of a civil servant as provided in Section 2(b) of
the KP Civil Servants Act, 1973 which is reproduced as
under: -
"(b) —civil servant means a person who is member of a
civil service of the 
Province, or who holds a civil post
in connection with the affairs of the 
Province, 
but
does not include-
(i)
a person who is on deputation to the Province from
the Federation or any other Province or other
authority;
(ii)
a person who is employed on contract) or on work
charge basis or who is paid from contingences; or
(iii)
a person who is —worker or —workman as
defined in the Factories Act) 1934 (Act XXV 
of
1934), or the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923
(Act VIII of 1923);
The Respondents in CA 283 were appointed in the
Settlement Operation, which, according to the learned AAG,
was to be run as a project. As such, upon expiry of the
Settlement Operation, the Respondents were to be relieved
and no regular appointments thereto were to be made. The
..
..
CIVIL APPEALS NO.239. 274 AND 283 OF 2020 
10
learned AAG further submits that the matter of regularization
of the Respondents relates to the terms and conditions of
their appointments, which squarely falls within the
jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in light of Article 212 of
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. When
confronted with this argument, the learned ASC for the
Respondents merely stated that since others were regularized,
therefore, the Respondents should have been regularized as
well. We note that the Respondents have conceded that they
were working in a Project as evident from their Writ Petition
before the High Court where they have stated the following:-
"That the services of the petitioners are retained by the
respondents in the Settlement Project Chitral till date"
(Underlining is ours)
11. When the Respondents themselves are conceding
that they were project employees, they cannot change their
stance at this stage and claim that they ought to have been
regularized under Section 19 of the 2005 Act which
specifically excludes project employees from its purview. As
such, the High Court without examining this position taken
by the Respondents held that they were entitled to
regularization. This amounts to reading into the 2005 Act so
also the KP Civil Servants Act, 1973, something which has
not been provided in the said Acts. This is, in our view, a
transgression of the mandate of Article 199 of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which is
impermissible and constitutes an excessive exercise of
jurisdiction. Section 19 has to be read with the rest of the KP
CIVIL APPEAlS NO.239274 AND 283 OF 2020
Civil Servants Act, 1973. Though Section 19 of the 2005 Act
provides the regularization of certain employees subject to the
fulfilment of certain conditions and deems all those appointed
while following the prescribed procedure as civil servants,
nevertheless, the ambit of Section 19 cannot be stretched to
include a separate class of employees into the definition of
civil servant provided in Section 2(b) of the KP Civil Servants
Act, 1973. When the definition is unambiguous, the High
Court cannot stretch it to include the Respondents in its
purview. This amounts to a usurpation of the powers of the
Legislature and the Executive as envisaged in Article 7 of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
COULD THE RESPONDENTS IN CA 239 OF 2020 BE
REGULARIZED WITH EFFECT FROM AN EARLIER DATE
AS OPPOSED TO 2008?
12. The learned AAG argued that the services of the
Respondents in CA 239 were regularized according to the law
i.e. Section 19(2) of the 2005 Act read with the First Proviso of
Section 19 of the KP Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2003.
Further, that the judgment in W.P No. 854/2000 is specific to
the employees of District Swat only and has no bearing on the
present Respondent's case. As such, the Respondents in CA
239 could not have been regularized from the date of their
appointments, and, were properly regularized with effect from
2008. As noted above, Section 19(2) of the 2005 Act provides
that all those employed on contract on or before 01.07.01 till
the commencement of the 2005 Act shall be deemed to be
appointed on regular basis. The 2005 Act was published in
CIVIL APPEALS Na239, 274 AND 283 07 2q20 
12
the official gazette on 23.07.05. By no means can the
Respondents mentioned above claim that they ought to have
been regularized with effect from their respective dates of
appointments whiáh predate the cut-off dates of the 2005 Act.
As such, the learned High Court erred in concluding that they
should have been regularized from the dates of their
appointments. When the law itself provides a date of its
application, the learned High Court cannot, on any ground,
amend the said date and extend the application of the 2005
Act to the extent that those who are not covered under it, gain
its benefit.
13. The learned High Court has based reliance on the
judgment in W.P No. 854/2000 to hold that the Respondents
should have been regularized from the date of their initial
appointments. We find this reliance to be misplaced for the
reason that the said judgment pertains to employees of a
different department and, only relates to the regularization of
the petitioners therein. It does not talk about pre-dating the
regularization of the petitioners therein. As such, placing
reliance on the said judgment is erroneous and is
distinguishable from the circumstances. When the competent
authority has regularized the Respondents per the law,
merely by stating that since others were regularized in a
different set of facts and circumstances from an earlier date, 
the High Court has erred in law and its findings to this effect
are unsustainable.
t±.t 
..fl
I
14.11.2018.
CIVIL APPEALS 11a239, 274 AND 283 OP 2020 
13
14.
The Impugned Judgments of the learned High
Court proceed on an incorrect factual and legal premise
and have incorrectly applied the relevant law, rules, and
regulations to the facts and circumstances of the cases
before it. We are therefore in no manner of doubt that the
impugned judgments are unsustainable in law as well as
facts and are liable to be set aside.
15.
For reasons recorded above, we allow these
appeals and set aside the Impugned Judgments of the
Peshawar High Court dated 27.09.2015, 17.07.2018 and
14,01. 19
Hans, L.C.
_Atot Approved For Reporting'