IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1428 OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 15.09.2015 
Passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar, in  
R.P.No.32-P/2014 in W.P.No.2547-P/2012) 
 
 
Qayyum Khan. 
 
 
 
… 
… 
Appellant. 
          
 
 
VERSUS 
Divisional Forest Officer, Mardan 
Wildlife Division, Mardan and others.  
… 
… 
Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant   
: 
Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, ASC 
 
For Respondent No.1-4 
: 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG. 
For Respondent No.5 
: 
In-Person.  
 
Date of hearing 
 
: 
25-02-2016 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.-  This Appeal, by leave of the 
Court is directed against order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar, whereby the Review Petition filed by the Appellant 
against the order dated 13.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.2547-P of 
2012, was dismissed.  
2. 
 
The facts necessary for the present proceedings are that on  
01-02-2010, the Appellant was appointed as Wildlife Watcher (BS-05) in 
Sakra Wildlife Range, Mardan, on contract basis till the expiry of the 
Project. On 25.05.2012, during the contract period of the Appellant, the 
Finance Department, Government of KPK, vide letter No.BO11/FC/1-
CA.1428/2015 
2 
5A/2012/13, converted the contract posts of Wildlife Watchers  into 
permanent posts in the said Range. However, the Appellant was not 
considered for appointment on permanent basis and his services were 
terminated, vide order dated 05.06.2012.  
3. 
 
The Appellant assailed the order of his termination before the 
Peshawar High Court, by filing Writ Petition No.2547 of 2012, which was 
dismissed. The Appellant filed Review Petition against the judgment passed 
by the learned High Court in the Writ Petition, which too was dismissed. 
The Appellant assailed the judgments of the learned Peshawar High Court 
before this Court by filing Civil Petition for leave to Appeal in which leave 
to Appeal was granted on 16.12.2015. Hence this Appeal.  
4. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the 
post against which the Appellant was appointed had been converted to a 
regular post, therefore, the Appellant ought to have been appointed against 
the regular post. He submits that many other employees working on 
contract basis in the projects were regularized after the project posts had 
been converted to regular posts.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, 
KPK, has supported the impugned judgments.  
6. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the 
learned Additional Advocate General, KPK. The only distinction between 
the case of the present Appellant and the case of the Respondents in Civil 
Appeals No.134-P of 2013 etc. is that the project in which the present 
Appellant was appointed was taken over by the KPK Government in the 
CA.1428/2015 
3 
year 2012 whereas most of the projects in which the aforesaid Respondents 
were appointed, were regularized before the cut-off date provided in North 
West Frontier Province (now KPK) Employees (Regularization of Services) 
Act, 2009. The present Appellant was appointed in the year 2010 on 
contract basis in the project after completion of all the requisite codal 
formalities, when on 25.05.2012, the project was taken over by the KPK 
Government. It appears that the Appellant was not allowed to continue after 
the change of hands of the project. Instead, the Government by cherry 
picking, had appointed some other person in place of the Appellant. The 
case of the present Appellant is covered by the principles laid down by this 
Court in the case of Civil Appeals No.134-P of 2013 etc. (Government of 
KPK through Secretary, Agriculture vs. Adnanullah and others), as the 
Appellants was discriminated against and was entitled to continue the job 
with the employees who were similarly placed and were allowed induction 
on regular basis.    
7. 
 
We, for the aforesaid reasons, allow this Appeal and set aside 
the impugned judgments. The Appellant shall be reinstated in service from 
the date of his termination and is entitled to the back benefits for the period 
he has worked with the project or the KPK Government. The service of the 
Appellant for the intervening period i.e. from the date of his termination till 
the date of his reinstatement shall be counted towards his pensionary 
benefits.  
 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad the, 25th Feb, 2016. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Approved for reporting.  
 
 
 
       Judge 
Sohail/**