IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, CJP 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.1515 & 1516 OF 2016 
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 02.06.2015 passed by 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.Ps. Nos.4122/2010 & 214/2011)  
 
Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 
Thr. Secretary Energy & Power Department,  
Peshawar, etc.   
 
 
 
… 
… 
Appellants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in both cases)  
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Ihsan Ullah   
 
 
 
… 
… 
Respondent  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.A.1515/2016) 
 
Masood Khan & others  
 
… 
… 
Respondent  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.A.1516/2016) 
 
 
For Appellant No.1  
: 
Mr. Umar Farooq Adam, Addl.AG KPK 
(in both cases) 
 
For Appellants (2-3) 
: 
Mr. Shumail Butt, ASC.  
(in C.A.1515/2016 & for  
Appellants 2-6 in C.A.1516/2016) 
 
For respondents   
: 
Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluqa, ASC.  
(in both cases) 
 
Date of hearing  
 
: 
08.02.2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT: 
  
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. – The Appellants challenge 
the common judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court dated 
02.06.2015, holding that the contract services of the Respondents 
stand regularised by operation of law, under Section 19(2) of the 
C.As.1515-1516/2016 
2
KPK Civil Servants Act 1973 (“Act, 1973”), as amended by the KPK 
Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005 (“Amendment Act, 2005”).  
2. 
 
The 
Respondents 
were 
appointed 
in 
2004 
as 
Accountants BPS-16 for one year on contract basis to project posts in 
various projects of the Sarhad Hydel Development Organisation 
(“SHYDO”) now known as the Pakhtunkhwa Energy Development 
Organisation (“PEDO”), which organisation is represented by 
Appellants No. 2 to 5. The Respondents’ contracts were repeatedly 
extended until December 2010, when they were informed that their 
employment was being terminated due to the completion of their 
respective projects. The Respondents challenged their termination 
vide Writ Petitions before the learned Peshawar High Court. By the 
impugned judgment dated 02.06.2015, the learned High Court 
allowed the Petitions and held that the Respondents stood 
regularized by operation of law, as already noted above.  
3. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
have gone through the impugned judgment carefully and perused 
the record.  
4. 
 
In 2005, Section 19(2) was inserted into the Act, 1973 by 
the Amendment Act, 2005 which reads as under: 
“19. Pension and Gratuity 
(1) … 
(2) 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, shall, with effect from the 
commencement of the said Act, be deemed to have been 
C.As.1515-1516/2016 
3
appointed on regular basis. All such persons and the 
persons appointed on regular basis to a service or post in 
the prescribed manner after commencement the said Act 
shall, for all intents and purposes, be civil servant, except 
for the purposes of pension or gratuity. Such a civil servant 
shall, in lieu of pension and gratuity, be entitled to receive 
such amount contributed by him towards the Contributory 
Provident Fund, along with the contributions made by 
Government to his account in the said Fund in the 
prescribed manner.” (emphasis supplied) 
5. 
 
The fiction of regularisation of service created by 
Section 19(2) supra was applied by the learned High Court because 
the date of contract employment of the Respondents falls within the 
qualifying period prescribed in the said provision. However, we are 
unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned High Court for 
a number of reasons.  
6. 
 
Firstly, it is pertinent to note that according to Section 
2(1)(b) of the Act, 1973: 
“2.(1)  … 
(a)   
… 
(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-
charged 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).” (emphasis supplied) 
 
In other words, according to the Act, 1973 civil servants are 
employees who are in the service of the provincial government or 
C.As.1515-1516/2016 
4
who hold a civil post in such government. According to the Sarhad 
Hydel Development Organisation Act, 1993 (now in its amended 
form 
known 
as 
the 
Pakhtunkhwa 
Energy 
Development 
Organisation Act, 1993) SHYDO/PEDO is not a government 
department; it is rather a semi-autonomous body. The expressions 
“service or post” used in Section 19(2) ibid manifest the attributes 
given in the aforesaid definition of a civil servant in Section 2(1)(b) 
of the Act, 1973. It becomes clear that Section 19(2) applies to 
employees of the government and not to employees of semi-
autonomous bodies. Therefore, in the absence of material showing 
that the Respondents are members of a Provincial service or are 
holding regular sanctioned posts in the Provincial Government, they 
are not eligible for the benefit granted by Section 19(2) ibid.  
7. 
 
Secondly, it is an undisputed fact that the Respondents 
were project employees. Their letters of appointment clearly state 
that their posts were “temporary project posts” which would be 
“likely to continue till the completion of the project.” The rationale 
for the 2005 amendment incorporating Section 19(2) in the Act, 1973 
refutes the view that the new sub-Section applies to project 
employees. Under its 2002 Contract Policy, the KPK government 
made contract based appointments on sanctioned posts falling 
under the provincial government budget. Such employment created 
disparity between the rights and privileges of regular and contract 
employees of the government. Section 19(2) ibid was introduced to 
mitigate that imbalance. A factual narrative of the remedial object of 
C.As.1515-1516/2016 
5
the said provision is available in the judgment of the learned 
Peshawar High Court in Tariq Habib vs. Govt of NWFP [2011 PLC 
(CS) 1479].  
8. 
 
The impugned judgment by the learned High Court 
places reliance on Government of KPK and others  vs.  Kaleem 
Shah and others (2011 SCMR 1004) as authority for regularisation of 
project employees. The view expressed in the said judgment follows 
the judgment of this Court dated 01.03.2011 passed in Civil Appeals 
Nos. 834 to 837 of 2010 titled Govt. of NWFP and others vs. 
Abdullah Khan and others. In that case, the employer government 
department had failed to prove that the contesting respondents were 
project 
employees. 
Consequently 
the 
latter 
were 
granted 
regularisation in service. The facts of the present case are different. 
The Respondents are admittedly project employees in a semi-
autonomous statutory body of the provincial government and the 
only 
question 
is 
whether 
such 
employment 
qualifies 
for 
regularization under Section 19(2) of the Act, 1973. We have already 
observed that the eligibility criterion  for relief under Section 19(2) of 
the Act, 1973, namely, being member of a provincial service or 
holder of a civil post in the provincial government, is not met by the 
Respondents. The KPK (Regularisation of Services) Act, 2009 also 
excludes project employees from its ambit, therefore, the 
Respondents are ineligible even on that score. Consequently, we are 
not persuaded by the relevance of the Kaleem Shah’s case supra 
relied by the learned High Court to the matter in issue.   
C.As.1515-1516/2016 
6
9. 
 
The Respondents have also alleged that they have been 
discriminated against by their employer SHYDO/PEDO. We do not, 
however, find reliable material to accept this contention. The 
Respondents have cited the cases of numerous SHYDO employees 
who have been regularised but these employees were not shown to 
be project employees. The difference of status between the said 
regularised employees and the Respondents is clear from their 
respective letters of appointment. Unlike the Respondents, the 
letters of appointment of the regularised employees do not offer 
employment on temporary project posts. The Respondents are 
therefore, prima facie,  not similarly placed as the regularised 
employees. The learned counsel for the Respondents cited the 
regularisation of one Mr. Anwar Zeb, a project employee. The 
Appellant employer has, however, stated that Mr. Anwar Zeb was 
‘inadvertently’ regularised but his status has been reversed. In view 
of the foregoing, the Respondents’ plea of discrimination is, prima 
facie, misconceived.  
10. 
 
Be that as it may and in the interest of justice, the 
Respondents may within one month hereof place documentary 
evidence of the regularisation of service of any project employee of 
SHYDO/PEDO before the Appellant authority in order to show that 
notwithstanding the employment of such employee  on a temporary 
project post his services were nevertheless regularised by the 
Appellant. In such event, the Appellant authority shall after  
 
C.As.1515-1516/2016 
7
Verification forthwith regularise the services of the Respondents in 
SHYDO/ PEDO with effect from the date of termination of their 
services.     
  
 
For the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment 
dated 02.06.2015 is set aside and these appeals are partly allowed in 
the above terms.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
Announced  
in Court on  05.05.2017. 
 
 
 
  Sd/- 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.