IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR  
 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.134-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 24-03-2011 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar, in Review Petition No.103/2009 in WP. No.59/2009) 
 
Govt. of KPK thr. Secy. Agriculture 
and others 
Vs. Adnanullah 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.135-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 22-09-2011 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.2170/2011) 
 
Chief Secy. Govt. of KPK & others   Vs. Amir Hussain and others  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.136-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 07-03-2012  passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.1897/2011) 
Govt. of KPK and others  
Vs. Muhammad Younas and others 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.137-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 13-03-2012 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Abbottabad Bench, in Writ Petition No.200-A/2012) 
Govt. of KPK and others   
Vs. Attaullah Khan and others  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.138-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 20-06-2012 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in W.P. No.189-M/2012) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Secy. Agriculture 
Livestock Peshawar and others    
Vs. Muhammad Ayub Khan 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.52-P OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 5-12-2012 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.3087/2011) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Chief Secretary 
and others   
Vs. Qalbe Abbas and another  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1-P/2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 10-05-2012 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in Writ Petition No.2474/2011) 
District Officer Community 
Development Department (Social 
Welfare) and others  
Vs. Ghani Rehman and others  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.133-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 17-05-2012 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat, in Writ Petition No.2001/2009) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Secretary 
Vs. Iftikhar Hussain and others  
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
2
Livestock and others   
 
  
CIVIL APPEAL NO.113-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 17-05-2012 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat, in Writ Petition No.2380/2009) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Secretary I.T, 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Muhammad Azhar and others  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.231 OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 24-04-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, D.I.Khan Bench, in Writ Petition No.37-D/2013) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Secy. Agriculture, 
Livestock, Peshawar and another   
Vs. Safdar Zaman and others  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.232 OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 24-04-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, D.I.Khan Bench,  in Writ Petition No.97-D/2013) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Secy. Agriculture, 
Livestock, Peshawar and another  
Vs. Innayatullah and others  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.600-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 06-06-2012 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.1818/2011) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Chief Secy. and 
others  
Vs. Noman Adil and others  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.496-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 26-06-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.1730-P/2014) 
Govt. of KPK thr. Chief Secretary 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Muhammad Nadeem Jan and 
others  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.34-P OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 23-09-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.141-P/2014) 
Dean, Pakistan Institute of 
Community Ophthalmology (PICO), 
HMC and another  
Vs. Muhammad Imran and others  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.526-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.376-P/12) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief 
Secretary Peshawar and others  
Vs. Mst. Safia 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.527-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.377-P/2012) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Mst. Rehab Khattak 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.528-P OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 12-03-2013 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.378-P/2012) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Faisal Khan 
  
CIVIL PETITION NO.28-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 19-09-2013 passed by the Peshawar  
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
3
High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat, in Writ Petition No.4335-P/2010) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Rahimullah and others  
 
  
CIVIL PETITION NO.214-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 30-01-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.2131-P/2013) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Mst. Fauzia Aziz 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.621-P OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 08-10-2015 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court, Abbottabad Bench,  in Writ Petition No.55-A/2015) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Mst. Malika Hijab Chishti 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.368-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 01-04-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.351-P/2013) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Imtiaz Khan 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.369-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 01-04-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.352-P/2013) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Waqar Ahmed  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.370-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 01-04-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.353-P/2013) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Mst. Nafeesa Bibi 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.371-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 01-04-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.2454-P/2013) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Mst. Naima 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.619-P OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 18-09-2014 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.2428-P/2013) 
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secy. 
Peshawar and others  
Vs. Muhammad Azam and others  
 
  
CA.134-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
Syed Masood Shah, SO Litigation.  
Hafiz Attaul Memeen, SO. Litigation  (Fin) 
Muhammad Khalid, AD (Litigation) 
Abdul Hadi, SO (Litigation) 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Mr. Imtiaz Ali, ASC 
(Res. No.186, 188, 191) 
: 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khan, ASC 
(CMA.496-P/13) 
: 
Mr. Ayub Khan, ASC 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
4
 
 
CA.135-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Imtiaz Ali, ASC 
 
CA.136-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Imtiaz Ali, ASC 
 
CA.137-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For Respondents (2 to 6) 
 
: 
Mr. Ijaz Anwar, ASC 
CA.138-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Not represented.  
CA.52-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For Respondent No.1 
 
: 
In person (Absent) 
For Respondent No.2 
: 
Not represented.  
CA.1-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For Respondents 
(1-4, 7, 8, & 10-13) 
 
: 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khan, ASC 
Mr. Khushdil Khan, ASC 
CA.133-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For Respondents 
(1-3, 5 & 7) 
 
: 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khan, ASC 
For respondents  
(4,8,9 & 10) 
 
: 
Not represented.  
CA.113-P/2013 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Ghulam Nabi Khan, ASC 
CA.231-P/2015 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For Respondents (1-3) 
 
: 
Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
5
CA.232-P/2015 
For the appellant(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For Respondent No.1 
 
 
: 
Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
CP.600-P/2014 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
   
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Mst. Sadia Rehim (in person) 
CP.496-P/2014 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
   
: 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
Noor Afzal, Director, Population Welfare 
Department. 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Mr. Khushdil Khan, ASC 
CP.34-P/2014 
For the Petitioner(s) 
   
: 
 
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, ASC 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
CPs.526 to 528-P/2013 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
     
: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Mr. Ijaz Anwar, ASC 
CP.28-P/2014 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
 
: 
 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khan, ASC 
Mr. Khushdil Khan, ASC 
 
CPs.214-P/2014, 368-
371-P/2014 and 619-
P/2014 & 621-P/2015, 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
 
: 
 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: 
Not represented.  
Date of hearing 
: 
24-02-2016 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.-  Through this common 
judgment, we intend to decide the titled Appeals/Petitions, as common 
questions of law and facts are involved therein.  
 
 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
6
CA.134-P/2013 
On Farm Water Management Project, KPK. 
2. 
 
On 27.10.2004, various posts in the “On Farm Water 
Management Project” were advertised. In response to the advertisement, the 
Respondent, Adnanullah, applied for the post of Accountant (BPS-11) for 
which he was selected and appointed for with effect from 31.12.2004. This 
appointment was initially for a period of one year and later was consistently 
extended from time to time on recommendation of the Petitioner.  In the 
year 2006, a proposal was moved for creation of 302 regular vacancies to 
accommodate the contract employees working in different Projects. The 
Chief Minister KPK approved the proposal of 275 regular posts for this 
purpose with effect from 1.7.2007. During the interregnum, the 
Government of NWFP (now KPK) promulgated Amendment Act IX of 
2009, thereby amending Section 19(2) of the NWFP Civil Servants Act, 
1973 and NWFP Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. 
However, the newly created regular posts did not include the Respondent’s 
post. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a Writ Petition which was allowed (on the 
conceding statement of Addl. Advocate General) with the direction that if 
the Respondent was eligible, his services should be regularized, subject to 
verification of his domicile. The Review Petition filed by the Govt. of KPK 
was dismissed being time barred. Thereafter, leave was granted in the 
Petition filed by the Government of KPK before this Court.  
CA.No.135-P/2013 & Civil Petition No.600-P of 2013 
On Farm Water Management Project, KPK 
3. 
 
On 23.06.2004, the Secretary, Agriculture, got published an 
advertisement in the press, inviting Applications for filling up the posts of 
Water Management Officers (Engineering) and Water Management 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
7
Officers (Agriculture) in BS-17, in the NWFP for the “On Farm Water 
Management Project” on contract basis. The Respondents applied for the 
said posts and in November, 2004 and February 2005 respectively, they 
were appointed for the aforementioned posts on contract basis, initially for 
a period of one year and later extendable to the remaining Project period, 
subject to their satisfactory performance and on the recommendations of the 
Departmental Promotion Committee after completion of requisite one 
month pre-service training.  In the year 2006, a proposal for restructuring 
and establishment of Regular Offices for the “On Farm Water Management 
Department at District level was made. A summary was prepared for the 
Chief Minister, KPK, for creation of 302 regular vacancies with the 
recommendation that eligible temporary/contract employees working on 
different Projects may be accommodated against regular posts on the basis 
of their seniority. The Chief Minister approved the summary and 
accordingly, 275 regular posts were created in the “On Farm Water 
Management Department” at District level w.e.f 01.07.2007. During the 
interregnum, the Government of NWFP (now KPK) promulgated 
Amendment Act IX of 2009, thereby amending Section 19(2) of the NWFP 
Civil Servants Act, 1973 and NWFP Employees (Regularization of 
Services) Act, 2009. However, the services of the Respondents were not 
regularized. Feeling aggrieved, they filed Writ Petitions before the 
Peshawar High Court, praying that employees placed in similar posts had 
been granted relief, vide judgment dated 22.12.2008, therefore, they were 
also entitled to the same treatment. The Writ Petitions were disposed of, 
vide impugned orders dated 22.09.2011 and 06.06.2012, with the direction 
to consider the case of the Respondents in the light of the judgment dated 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
8
22.12.2008 and 03.12.2009. The Appellants filed Petition for leave to 
Appeal before this Court in which leave was granted; hence this Appeal and 
Petition.  
C.A.No.136-P of 2013 to 138-P of 2013 
On Farm Water Management Project, KPK 
4. 
 
In the years 2004-2005, the Respondents were appointed on 
various posts on contract basis, for an initial period of one year and 
extendable for the remaining Project period subject to their satisfactory 
performance. In the year 2006, a proposal for restructuring and 
establishment of Regular Offices of “On Farm Water Management 
Department” was made at District level. A summary was prepared for the 
Chief Minister, KPK, for creation of 302 regular vacancies, recommending 
that eligible temporary/contract employees who, at that time, were working 
on different Projects may be accommodated against regular posts on the 
basis of seniority. The Chief Minister approved the proposed summary and 
accordingly 275 regular posts were created in the “On Farm Water 
Management Department” at District level w.e.f 01.07.2007. During the 
interregnum, the Government of NWFP (now KPK) promulgated 
Amendment Act IX of 2009, thereby amending Section 19(2) of the NWFP 
Civil Servants Act, 1973 and NWFP Employees (Regularization of 
Services) Act, 2009. However, the services of the Respondents were not 
regularized. Feeling aggrieved, they filed Writ Petitions before the 
Peshawar High Court, praying therein that employees placed in similar 
posts had been granted relief, vide judgment dated 22.12.2008, therefore, 
they were also entitled to the same treatment. The Writ Petitions were 
disposed of, vide impugned orders dated 07.03.2012, 13.03.2012 and 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
9
20.06.2012, with the direction to consider the case of the Respondents in 
the light of the judgment dated 22.12.2008 and 03.12.2009. The Appellants 
filed Petition for leave to Appeal before this Court in which leave was 
granted; hence these Appeals.  
Civil Petition No.619-P/2014  
Establishment of Database Development Based on Electronic Tools (Project) 
5. 
 
In the year 2010 and 2011, in pursuance of an advertisement, 
upon the recommendations of the Project Selection Committee, the 
Respondents were appointed as Data Base Developer, Web Designer and 
Naib Qasid, in the Project namely “Establishment of Data Base 
Development Based on Electronic Tools” including “MIS, Social Welfare 
and Women Development Department”, on contract basis, initially for one 
year, which period was extended from time to time. However, the services 
of the Respondents were terminated, vide order dated 04.07.2013, 
irrespective of the fact that the Project life was extended and the posts were 
brought under the regular Provincial Budget. The Respondents impugned 
their termination order by filing Writ Petition No.2428 of 2013, before the 
Peshawar High Court, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment 
dated 18.09.2014, holding that the Respondents would be treated at par, if 
they were found similarly placed, as held in judgments dated 30.01.2014 
and 01.04.2014 passed in Writ Petitions No.2131 of 2013 and 353-P of 
2013. The Appellants challenged the judgment of the learned High Court 
before this Court by filing Petition for leave to Appeal.  
 
 
 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
10
Civil Petitions No.368-P of 2014 to 371-P of 2014 
Industrial Training Centre Garhi Shehsdad and Industrial Training Centre Garha Tajak, 
Peshawar 
6. 
 
In the year 2008, upon the recommendations of the 
Departmental Selection Committee, after fulfilling all the codal formalities, 
the Respondents were appointed on contract basis on various posts in 
Industrial Training Centre Garhi Shehsdad and Industrial Training Centre 
Garha Tajak, Peshawar. Their period of contract was extended from time to 
time. On 04.09.2012, the Scheme in which the Respondents were working 
was brought under the regular Provincial Budget, but the services of the 
Respondents despite regularization of the Scheme were terminated vide 
order dated 19.06.2012. The Respondents filed Writ Petitions No.351-P, 
352, 353 and 2454-P of 2013, against the order or termination and for 
regularization of their services on the ground that the posts against which 
they were appointed stood regularized and had been converted to the 
regular Provincial Budget, with the approval of the Competent Authority. 
The learned Peshawar High Court, vide common judgment dated 
01.04.2014, allowed the Writ Petitions, reinstating the Respondents in 
Service from the date of their termination with all consequential benefits. 
Hence these Petitions by the Petitioners.  
Civil Petition No.214-P of 2014 
Welfare Home for Destitute Children, Charsadda. 
7. 
 
On 17.03.2009, a post of Superintendent BS-17 was 
advertised for “Welfare Home for Destitute Children”, Charsadda. The 
Respondent applied for the same and upon recommendations of the 
Departmental Selection Committee, she was appointed at the said post on 
30.04.2010, on contractual basis till 30.06.2011, beyond which period her 
contract was extended from time to time. The post against which the 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
11
Respondent was serving was brought under the regular Provincial Budget 
w.e.f 01.07.2012. However, the services of the Respondent were 
terminated, vide order dated 14.06.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent 
filed Writ Petition No.2131 of 2013, which was allowed, vide impugned 
judgment dated 30.01.2014, whereby it was held that the Respondent would 
be appointed on conditional basis subject to final decision of this apex 
Court in Civil Petition No.344-P of 2012.  Hence this Petition by the Govt. 
of KPK. 
Civil Petition No.621-P of 2015 
Daar-ul-Aman Haripur 
8. 
 
On 17.03.2009, a post of Superintendent BS-17 was 
advertisement for “Darul Aman”, Haripur. The Respondent applied for the 
said post and upon recommendations of the Departmental Selection 
Committee she was appointed w.e.f. 30.04.2010, initially on contract basis 
till 30.06.2011, beyond which her period of contract was extended from 
time to time. The post against which the Respondent was serving was 
brought under the regular Provincial Budget w.e.f 01.07.2012. However, 
the services of the Respondent were terminated, vide order dated 
14.06.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent filed Writ Petition No.55-A 
of 2015, which was allowed, vide impugned judgment dated 08.10.2015, 
holding that “we accept this writ Petition and pass same order as has 
already been passed by this Court in W.P.No2131-P of 2013 decided on 
30.01.2014 and direct the respondents to appoint the Petitioner on 
conditional basis subject to final decision of the Apex Court in Civil 
Petition No.344-P of 2012.” Hence this Petition by the Govt. of KPK. 
 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
12
Civil Petition No.28-P of 2014 
Darul Kafala, Swat. 
9. 
 
In the year 2005, the Government of KPK decided to 
establish Darul Kafalas in different districts of the Province between 
01.07.2005 to 30.06.2010. An advertisement was published to fill in 
various posts in Darul Kafala, Swat. Upon recommendations of the 
Departmental Selection Committee, the Respondents were appointed on 
various posts on contract basis for a period of one year w.e.f 01.07.2007 to 
30.06.2008, which period was extended from time to time. After expiry of 
the period of the Project in the year 2010, the Government of KPK has 
regularized the Project with the approval of the Chief Minister. However, 
the services of the Respondents were terminated, vide order dated 
23.11.2010, with effect from 31.12.2010. The Respondents challenged the 
aforesaid order before the Peshawar High Court, inter alia, on the ground 
that the employees working in other Darul Kafalas have been regularized 
except the employees working in Darul Kafala, Swat. The Respondents 
contended before the Peshawar High Court that the posts of the Project 
were brought under the regular Provincial Budget, therefore, they were also 
entitled to be treated at par with the other employees who were regularized 
by the Government. The Writ Petition of the Respondents was allowed, 
vide impugned judgment dated 19.09.2013, with the direction to the 
Petitioners to regularize the services of the Respondents with effect from 
the date of their termination.  
Civil Petitions No.526 to 528-P of 2013 
Centre for Mentally Retarded & Physically Handicapped (MR&PH), Nowshera, and Welfare 
Home for Orphan Female Children Nowshera 
10. 
 
The Respondents in these Petitions were appointed on 
contract basis on various posts upon the recommendations of the 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
13
Departmental Selection Committee in the Schemes titled “Centre for 
Mentally Retarded & Physically Handicapped (MR&HP)” and “Welfare 
Home for Orphan Female Children”, Nowshera, vide order dated 
23.08.2006 and 29.08.2006, respectively. Their initial period of contractual 
appointment was for one year till 30.06.2007, which was extended from 
time to time till 30.06.2011. By notification dated 08.01.2011, the above-
titled Schemes were brought under the regular Provincial Budget of the 
N.W.F.P. (now KPK) with the approval of the Competent Authority. 
However, the services of the Respondents were terminated w.e.f 
01.07.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondents filed Writ Petitions 
No.376, 377 and 378-P of 2012, contending that their services were 
illegally dispensed with and that they were entitled to be regularized in 
view of the KPK Employees (Regularization of Services Act), 2009, 
whereby the services of the Project employees working on contract basis 
had been regularized. The learned High Court, while relying upon the 
judgment dated 22.03.2012, passed by this Court in Civil Petitions           
No.562-P to 578-P, 588-P to 589-P, 605-P to 608-P of 2011 and 55-P, 56-P 
and 60-P of 2012, allowed the Writ Petitions of the Respondents, directing 
the Petitioners to reinstate the Respondents in service from the date of their 
termination and regularize them from the date of their appointments. Hence 
these Petitions.  
Civil Appeal No.52-P of 2015 
11. 
 
On 23.06.2004, the Secretary, Agriculture, published an 
advertisement in the press, inviting Applications for filling up the posts of 
Water Management Officers (Engineering) and Water Management 
Officers (Agriculture), BS-17, in the NWFP in the “On Farm Water 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
14
Management Project” on contract basis. The Respondent applied for the 
said post and was appointed as such on contract basis, on the 
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee after 
completion of a requisite one month pre-service training, for an initial 
period of one year, extendable till completion of the Project, subject to his 
satisfactory performance.  In the year 2006, a proposal for restructuring and 
establishment of Regular Offices of the “On Farm Water Management 
Department” at District level was made. A summary was prepared for the 
Chief Minister, KPK, for creation of 302 regular vacancies, recommending 
that eligible temporary/contract employees working on different Projects 
may be accommodated against regular posts on the basis of their seniority. 
The Chief Minister approved the summary and accordingly, 275 regular 
posts were created in the “On Farm Water Management Department” at 
District level w.e.f 01.07.2007. During the interregnum, the Government of 
NWFP (now KPK) promulgated Amendment Act IX of 2009, thereby 
amending Section 19(2) of the NWFP Civil Servants Act, 1973 and enacted 
the NWFP Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. However, 
the services of the Respondent were not regularized. Feeling aggrieved, he 
filed Writ Petition No.3087 of 2011 before the Peshawar High Court, 
praying that employees on similar posts had been granted relief, vide 
judgment dated 22.12.2008, therefore, he was also entitled to the same 
treatment. The Writ Petition was allowed, vide impugned order dated 
05.12.2012, with the direction to the Appellants to regularize the services of 
the Respondent. The Appellants filed Petition for leave to Appeal before 
this Court in which leave was granted; hence this Appeal.  
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
15
 
Civil Appeal No.01-P of 2013 
Welfare Home for Female Children, Malakand at Batkhela and Industrial Training Centre at 
Garhi Usman Khel, Dargai. 
12. 
 
In response to an advertisement, the Respondents applied for 
different positions in the “Welfare Home for Female Children”, Malakand 
at Batkhela and “Female Industrial Training Centre” at Garhi Usman Khel. 
Upon the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee, the 
Respondents were appointed on different posts on different dates in the 
year 2006, initially on contract basis for a period of one year, which period 
was extended from time to time. However, the services of the Respondents 
were terminated, vide order dated 09.07.2011, against which the 
Respondents filed Writ Petition No.2474 of 2011, inter alia, on the ground 
that the posts against which they were appointed had been converted to the 
budgeted posts, therefore, they were entitled to be regularized alongwith the 
similarly placed and positioned employees. The learned High Court, vide 
impugned order dated 10.05.2012, allowed the Writ Petition of the 
Respondents, directing the Appellants to consider the case of regularization 
of the Respondents. Hence this Appeal by the Appellants.  
Civil Appeals No.133-P  
Establishment and Upgradation of Veterinary Outlets (Phase-III)-ADP 
13. 
 
Consequent upon recommendations of the Departmental 
Selection Committee, the Respondents were appointed on different posts in 
the Scheme “Establishment and Up-gradation of Veterinary Outlets (Phase-
III)ADP”, on contract basis for the entire duration of the Project, vide 
orders dated 4.4.2007, 13.4.2007. 17.4.2007 and 19.6.2007, respectively. 
The contract period was extended from time to time when on 05.06.2009, a 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
16
notice was served upon them, intimating them that their services were no 
longer required after 30.06.2009. The Respondents invoked the 
constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court, by filing Writ 
Petition No.2001 of 2009, against the order dated 05.06.2009. The Writ 
Petition of the Respondents was disposed of, by judgment dated 
17.05.2012, directing the Appellants to treat the Respondents as regular 
employees from the date of their termination. Hence this Appeal by the 
Appellants.  
Civil Appeal No.113-P of 2013 
Establishment of One Science and One Computer Lab in Schools/Colleges of NWFP 
14. 
 
On 
26.09.2006 
upon 
the 
recommendations 
of 
the 
Departmental Selection Committee, the Respondents were appointed on 
different posts in the Scheme “Establishment of One Science and One 
Computer Lab in School/Colleges of NWFP”, on contract basis. Their 
terms of contractual appointments were extended from time to time when 
on 06.06.2009, they were served with a notice that their services were not 
required any more. The Respondents filed Writ Petition No.2380 of 2009, 
which was allowed on the analogy of judgment rendered in Writ Petition 
No.2001 of 2009 passed on 17.05.2012. Hence this Appeal by the 
Appellants.   
Civil Appeals No.231 and 232-P of 2015 
National Program for improvement of Water Courses in Pakistan 
15. 
 
Upon the recommendations of the Departmental Selection 
Committee, the Respondents in both the Appeals were appointed on 
different posts in “National Program for Improvement of Water Courses in 
Pakistan”, on 17th January 2005 and 19th November 2005, respectively, 
initially on contract basis for a period of one year, which was extended 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
17
from time to time. The Appellants terminated the service of the 
Respondents w.e.f 01.07.2011, therefore, the Respondents approached the 
Peshawar High Court, mainly on the ground that the employees placed in 
similar posts had approached the High Court through W.Ps.No.43/2009, 
84/2009 and 21/2009, which Petitions were allowed by judgment dated 
21.01.2009 and 04.03.2009. The Appellants filed Review Petitions before 
the Peshawar High Court, which were disposed of but still disqualified the 
Appellants filed Civil Petitions No.85, 86, 87 and 91 of 2010 before this 
Court and Appeals No.834 to 837/2010 arising out of said Petitions were 
eventually dismissed on 01.03.2011. The learned High Court allowed the 
Writ Petitions of the Respondents with the direction to treat the 
Respondents as regular employees. Hence these Appeals by the Appellants.  
Civil Petition No.496-P of 2014.  
Provision of Population Welfare Programme 
16. 
 
In the year 2012, consequent upon the recommendations of 
the Departmental Selection Committee, the Respondents were appointed on 
various posts in the project namely “Provision of Population Welfare 
Programme” on contract basis for the entire duration of the Project. On 
08.01.2012, the Project was brought under the regular Provincial Budget. 
The Respondents applied for their regularization on the touchstone of the 
judgments already passed by the learned High Court and this Court on the 
subject. The Appellants contended that the posts of the Respondents did not 
fall under the scope of the intended regularization, therefore, they preferred 
Writ Petition No.1730 of 2014, which was disposed of, in view of the 
judgment of the learned High Court dated 30.01.2014 passed in Writ 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
18
Petition No.2131 of 2013 and judgment of this Court in Civil Petition 
No.344-P of 2012. Hence these Appeals by the Appellants.  
Civil Petition No.34-P of 2015 
Pakistan Institute of Community Ophthalmology Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar  
17. 
 
The Respondents were appointed on various posts in the 
“Pakistan Institute of Community Ophthalmology Hayatabad Medical 
Complex”, Peshawar, in the years 2001, 2002 and from 2007 to 2012, on 
contract basis. Through advertisement dated 10.01.2014, the said Medical 
Complex sought fresh Applications through advertisement against the posts 
held by them. Therefore, the Respondents filed Writ Petition No.141 of 
2004, which was disposed of more or less in the terms as state above. 
Hence this Petition. 
18. 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. Advocate General, KPK, 
appeared on behalf of Govt. of KPK and submitted that the employees in 
these Appeals/ Petitions were appointed on different dates since 1980. In 
order to regularize their services, 302 new posts were created. According to 
him, under the scheme the Project employees were to be appointed stage 
wise on these posts. Subsequently, a number of Project employees filed 
Writ Petitions and the learned High Court directed for issuance of orders 
for the regularization of the Project employees. He further submitted that 
the concessional statement made by the then Addl. Advocate General, 
KPK, before the learned High Court to “adjust/regularize the petitioners on 
the vacant post or posts whenever falling vacant in future but in order of 
seniority/eligibility.” was not in accordance with law. The employees were 
appointed on Projects and their appointments on these Projects were to be 
terminated on the expiry of the Project as it was stipulated that they will not 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
19
claim any right of absorption in the Department against regular posts as per 
existing Project policy. He also referred to the office order dated 
31.12.2004 regarding appointment of Mr. Adnanullah (Respondent in CA. 
No.134-P/2013) and submitted that he was appointed on contract basis for a 
period of one year and the above mentioned office order clearly indicates 
that he was neither entitled to pension nor GP Fund and furthermore, had 
no right of seniority and or regular appointment. His main contention was 
that the nature of appointment of these Project employees was evident from 
the advertisement, office order and their appointment letters. All these 
reflected that they were not entitled to regularization as per the terms of 
their appointments.  
19. 
 
In the month of November 2006, a proposal was floated for 
restructuring and establishment of Regular Offices of “On Farm Water 
Management Department” at District level in NWFP (now KPK) which 
was approved by the then Chief Minister KPK; who agreed to create 302 
posts of different categories and the expenditure involved was to be met out 
of the budgetary allocation. The employees already working in the Projects 
were to be appointed on seniority basis on these newly created posts. Some 
of the employees working since 1980 had preferential rights for their 
regularization. In this regard, he also referred to various Notifications since 
1980, whereby the Governor KPK was pleased to appoint the candidates 
upon the recommendations of the KPK Public Service Commission on 
different Projects on temporary basis and they were to be governed by the 
KPK Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. 302 posts 
were created in pursuance of the summary of 2006, out of which 254 posts 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
20
were filled on seniority basis, 10 through promotion and 38 by way of 
Court orders passed by this Court and or the learned Peshawar High Court. 
He referred to the case of Govt. of NWFP  vs. Abdullah Khan (2011 SCMR 
898) whereby, the contention of the Appellants (Govt. of NWFP) that the 
Respondents were Project employees appointed on contractual basis were 
not entitled to be regularized, was not accepted and it was observed by this 
Court that definition of “Contract appointment” contained in Section 
2(1)(aa) of the NWFP Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, 
was not attracted in the cases of the Respondent employees. Thereafter, in 
the case of Government of NWFP vs. Kaleem Shah (2011 SCMR 1004), 
this Court followed the judgment of Govt. of NWFP vs. Abdullah Khan 
(ibid). The judgment, however, was wrongly decided. He further contended 
that KPK Civil Servants (Amendment) Act 2005, (whereby Section 19 of 
the KPK Civil Servants Act 1973, was substituted), was not applicable to 
Project employees. Section 5 of the KPK Civil Servants Act 1973, states 
that the appointment to a civil service of the Province or to a civil post in 
connection with the affairs of the Province shall be made in the prescribed 
manner by the Governor or by a person authorized by the Governor in that 
behalf. But in the cases in hand, the Project employees were appointed by 
the Project Director, therefore, they could not claim any right to 
regularization under the aforesaid provision of law. Furthermore, he 
contended that the judgment passed by the learned Peshawar High Court is 
liable to be set aside as it is solely based on the facts that the Respondents 
who were originally appointed in 1980 had been regularized. He submitted 
that the High Court erred in regularizing the employees on the touchstone 
of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as the 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
21
employees appointed in 2005 and those in 1980 were not similarly placed 
and, therefore, there was no question of discrimination. According to him, 
they will have to come through fresh inductions to relevant posts if they 
wish to fall under the scheme of regularization. He further contended that 
any wrongful action that may have taken place previously, could not justify 
the commission of another wrong on the basis of such plea. The cases 
where the orders were passed by DCO without lawful authority could not 
be said to have been made in accordance with law. Therefore, even if some 
of the employees had been regularized due to previous wrongful action, 
others could not take plea of being treated in the same manner. In this 
regard, he has relied upon the case of Government of Punjab vs. Zafar Iqbal 
Dogar (2011 SCMR 1239) and Abdul Wahid vs. Chairman CBR (1998 
SCMR 882).  
 
20. 
 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khan, learned ASC, appeared on behalf of 
Respondent(s) in C.As.134-P/2013, 1-P/2013 and C.P.28-P/2014 and 
submitted that all of his clients were clerks and appointed on non-
commissioned posts. He further submitted that the issue before this Court 
had already been decided by four different benches of this Court from time 
to time and one review petition in this regard had also been dismissed. He 
contended that fifteen Hon’ble Judges of this Court had already given their 
view in favour of the Respondents and the matter should not have been 
referred to this Bench for review. He further contended that no employee 
was regularized until and unless the Project on which he was working was 
not put under the regular Provincial Budget as such no regular posts were 
created. The process of regularization was started by the Government itself 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
22
without intervention of this Court and without any Act or Statute of the 
Government. Many of the decisions of the Peshawar High Court were 
available, wherein the directions for regularization were issued on the basis 
of discrimination. All the present cases before this Court are related to the 
category in which the Project became part of the regular Provincial Budget 
and the posts were created. Thousands of employees were appointed 
against these posts. He referred to the case of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Vs. The 
State (PLD 1979 SC 741) and submitted that a review was not justifiable, 
notwithstanding error being apparent on face of record, if judgment or 
finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, was 
sustainable on other grounds available on record.  
21. 
 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC, appeared on behalf of 
Respondent(s) in Civil Appeal Nos. 135-136-P/2013 and on behalf of all 
174 persons who were issued notice vide leave granting order dated 
13.06.2013. He submitted that various Regularization Acts i.e. KPK Adhoc 
Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1987, KPK Adhoc Civil 
Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1988, KPK Employees on 
Contract Basis (Regularization of Services) Act, 1989, KPK Employees on 
Contract Basis (Regularization of Services) (Amendment) Act, 1990, KPK 
Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005, KPK Employees (Regularization 
of Services) Act, 2009, were promulgated to regularize the services of 
contractual employees. The Respondents, including 174 to whom he was 
representing, were appointed during the year 2003/2004 and the services of 
all the contractual employees were regularized through an Act of legislature 
i.e. KPK Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the KPK Employees 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
23
(Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, was not applicable to present 
Respondents. He referred to Section 19(2) of the KPK Civil Servants Act 
1973, which was substituted vide KPK Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 
2005, provides that “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 appointment on contact basis, 
shall, with effect from the commencement of the said Act, be deemed to 
have been appointed on regular basis.”  Furthermore, vide Notification 
dated 11.10.1989 issued by the Government of NWFP, the Governor of 
KPK was pleased to declare the “On Farm Water Management Directorate” 
as an attached Department of Food, Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperation 
Department, Govt. of NWFP. Moreover, it was also evident from the 
Notification dated 03.07.2013 that 115 employees were regularized under 
section 19 (2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Amendment) 
Act, 2005 and Regularization Act, 2009 from the date of their initial 
appointment. Therefore, it was a past and closed transaction. Regarding 
summaries submitted to the Chief Minister for creation of posts, he clarified 
that it was not one summary (as stated by the learned Addl. Advocate 
General KPK) but three summaries submitted on 11.06.2006, 04.01.2012 
and 20.06.2012, respectively, whereby total 734 different posts of various 
categories were created for these employees from the regular budgetary 
allocation. Even through the third summary, the posts were created to 
regularize the employees in order to implement the judgments of Hon’ble 
Peshawar High Court dated 15.09.2011, 8.12.2011 and Supreme Court of 
Pakistan dated 22.3.2012. Approximately, 20-30% employees were 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
24
recruited through KPK Public Service Commission and the Public Service 
Commission is only meant to recommend the candidates on regular posts.  
 
22. 
 
Mr. Imtiaz Ali, learned ASC, appearing on behalf of the 
Respondent in CA No.134-P/2013, submitted that there was one post of 
Accountant which had been created and that the Respondent, Adnanullah, 
was the only Accountant who was working there.  He contented that, even 
otherwise, judgment dated 21.9.2009 in Writ Petition No.59/2009, was not 
questioned before this Court and the same had attained finality. He further 
submitted that his Writ Petition was allowed on the strength of Writ 
Petition No. 356/2008 and that no Appeal has been filed against it.  
 
23. 
 
Mr. Ayub Khan, learned ASC, appeared in C.M.A 496-
P/2013 on behalf of employees whose services might be affected (to whom 
notices were issued by this Court vide leave granting order dated 
13.06.2013) and adopted the arguments advanced by the senior learned 
counsels including Hafiz S. A. Rehman. 
24. 
 
Mr. Ijaz Anwar, learned ASC, appeared in C.A 137-P/2013 
for Respondents No. 2 to 6, CPs.526-P to 528-P/2013 for Respondents and 
for Appellant in Civil Appeal No.605-P/2015 (JR) and submitted that the 
Regularization Act of 2005, is applicable to his case and if benefit is given 
to some employees then in light of the judgment of this Court titled 
Government of Punjab Vs. Samina Perveen (2009 SCMR 1), wherein it was 
observed that if some point of law is decided by Court relating to the terms 
and conditions of a Civil Servant who litigated and there were other who 
had not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case the dictates of justice 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
25
and rules of good governance demand that the benefit of the said decision 
be extended to others also who may not be parties to that litigation. 
Furthermore, the judgment of Peshawar High Court which included Project 
employees as defined under Section 19(2) of the KPK Civil Servants Act 
1973 which was substituted vide KPK Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 
2005, was not challenged. In the NWFP Employees (Regularization of 
Services) Act, 2009, the Project employees have been excluded but in 
presence of the judgment delivered by this Court, in the cases of Govt. of 
NWFP vs. Abdullah Khan (ibid) and Govt. of NWFP vs. Kaleem Shah 
(ibid), the Peshawar High Court had observed that the similarly placed 
persons should be considered for regularization. 
25. 
 
While arguing Civil Appeal No. 605-P/2015, he submitted 
that in this case the Appellants/ Petitioners were appointed on contract basis 
for a period of one year vide order dated 18.11.2007, which was 
subsequently extended from time to time. Thereafter, the services of the 
Appellants were terminated vide notice dated 30.05.2011. The learned 
Bench of the Peshawar High Court refused relief to the employees and 
observed that they were expressly excluded from the purview of Section 
2(1)(b) of KPK (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009.  He further 
contended that the Project against which they were appointed had become 
part of regular Provincial Budget. Thereafter, some of the employees were 
regularized while others were denied, which made out a clear case of 
discrimination. Two groups of persons similarly placed could not be treated 
differently, in this regard he relied on the judgments of Abdul Samad vs. 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
26
Federation of Pakistan (2002 SCMR 71) and Engineer Nariandas vs. 
Federation of Pakistan (2002 SCMR 82).   
 
 
 
 
 
26. 
 
We have heard the learned Law Officer as well as the learned 
ASCs, representing the parties and have gone through the relevant record 
with their able assistance. The controversy in these cases pivots around the 
issue as to whether the Respondents are governed by the provisions of the 
North West Frontier Province (now KPK) Employees (Regularization of 
Services) Act, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It would be 
relevant to reproduce Section 3 of the Act: 
 
“3. 
Regularization 
of 
Services 
of 
certain 
employees.—All employees including recommendees of 
the High Court appointed on contract or adhoc 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.” 
 
27. 
 
The aforesaid Section of the Act reproduced hereinabove 
clearly provides for the regularization of the employees appointed either on 
contract basis or adhoc basis and were holding contract appointments on 
31st December, 2008 or till the commencement of this Act. Admittedly, the 
Respondents were appointed on one year contract basis, which period of 
their appointments was extended from time to time and were holding their 
respective posts on the cut-of date provided in Section 3 (ibid). 
 
28. 
 
Moreover, the Act contains a non-obstante clause in Section 
4A which reads as under: 
“4A. 
Overriding 
effect.—Notwithstanding 
any 
thing to the contrary contained in any other law or 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
27
rule for the time being in force, the provisions of 
this Act shall have an overriding effect and the 
provisions of any such law or rule to the extent of 
inconsistency to this Act shall cease to have effect.” 
 
29. 
 
The above Section expressly excludes the application of any 
other law and declares that the provisions of the Act will have overriding 
effect, being a special enactment. In this background, the cases of the 
Respondents squarely fall within the ambit of the Act and their services 
were mandated to be regulated by the provisions of the Act.  
 
30. 
 
It is also an admitted fact that the Respondents were 
appointed on contract basis on Project posts but the Projects, as conceded 
by the learned Additional Advocate General, were funded by the Provincial 
Government by allocating regular Provincial Budget prior to the 
promulgation of the Act. Almost all the Projects were brought under the 
regular Provincial Budget Schemes by the Government of KPK and 
summaries were approved by the Chief Minster of the KPK for operating 
the Projects on permanent basis. The “On Farm Water Management 
Project” was brought on the regular side in the year 2006 and the Project 
was declared as an attached Department of the Food, Agriculture, Livestock 
and Co-operative Department. Likewise, other Projects were also brought 
under the regular Provincial Budget Scheme. Therefore, services of the 
Respondents would not be affected by the language of Section 2(aa) and (b) 
of the Act, which could only be attracted if the Projects were abolished on 
the completion of their prescribed tenure. In the cases in hand, the Projects 
initially were introduced for a specified time whereafter they were 
transferred on permanent basis by attaching them with Provincial 
CAs.134-P/2013 etc 
28
Government departments. The employees of the same Project were adjusted 
against the posts created by the Provincial Government in this behalf.  
 
31. 
 
The record further reveals that the Respondents were 
appointed on contract basis and were in employment/service for several 
years and Projects on which they were appointed have also been taken on 
the regular Budget of the Government, therefore, their status as Project 
employees has ended once their services were transferred to the different 
attached Government Departments, in terms of Section 3 of the Act. The 
Government of KPK was also obliged to treat the Respondents at par, as it 
cannot adopt a policy of cherry picking to regularize the employees of 
certain Projects while terminating the services of other similarly placed 
employees.      
 
32. 
 
The above are the reasons of our short order dated 24.2.2016, 
which reads as under:- 
“Arguments heard. For the reasons to be recorded 
separately, these Appeals, except Civil Appeal No.605 of 
2015, are dismissed. Judgment in Civil Appeal No.605                
of 2015 is reserved” 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad the, 
24-02-2016 
Approved for reporting. 
