P
t 
*1
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
(p4-)
304 & 3 
—__a_ac.aau, 
499, 3O0
06 OF 2020
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2014 OF PESHAWAR
HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR, PASSED IN WRIT PETITIONS
Na 390-p OF 2012, ETC.
Deputy 
Director, 
Finance 
&
Administration FATA through Additional
Chief Secretary, FATA Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary FATA, FATA
Secretariat, Warsak Road, Peshawar &
others
Secretary, Govt. of K.P. Agriculture,
Livestock 
& 
Dairy 
Development
Cooperatives & Fisheries, Peshawar &
others
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary, Civil
Secretariat, Peshawar and others
Govt. of K.P. through Chief Secretary,
Peshawar & others
Province of KPK through Secretary Health
Department Peshawar & others
Govt. of KPK through Secretary Health,
Peshawar and others
Govt. of KPI< through Secretary Health,
Peshawar and others
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary,
Peshawar
Govt. of KPK through Secretary Higher
Education, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary FATA, FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary
Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary FATA, FATA
Secretariat Peshawar & others
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary
Peshawar & others
Directorate of Livestock & Dairy
Development FATA through its Director,
FATA Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary FATA, FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
(in CA 23112020)
(in CA 23312020)
(in CA 23512020)
(in CA 23612020)
(in CA 23812020)
(in CA 24112020)
(in CA 24212020)
(in CA 24312020)
(in CA 25612020)
(in CA 26012020)
(in CA 26212020)
(in CA 26312020)
(in CA 26412020)
fin CA 26612020)
(in CA 27812020)
fin CA 279/2020)
.,. *
El 1 
294. 29_5 296, 9 97 299 300 304 & 006 OF2020 264. 266. 278. 279. 281, 
2
Additional Chief Secretary FATA, FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Govt. of K.P. through Chief Secretary,
Peshawar & others
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary
Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary, FATA , FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Additional Chief Secretary FATA, FATA
Secretariat, Peshawar & others
Govt. of KPK through Secretary Health
Department Peshawar & others
Secretary Health Service, FATA Secretariat
Warsak Road, Peshawar & others
Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary,
Peshawar and others
VERSUS
Dr. Lal Marjari & another
Sher Farooq
Barkat Ali & others
Lad Rehman & others
Syeda Humaira Sultan & others
Muqadar Shah & others
Nazeerullah and others
Muhammad Farooq and others
Muhammad Waris Khan
Umar Muhammad Farooq & others
Gui Wali Shah & others
Salih Shah & another
Ria.z & another
Irshad Hussain & others
Dr. Sajjad ur Rehman & others
Farzan UIlah & others
Zaher Ud Din
Saida Rehman
Muhammad Tahir Afridi
Ijaz Hussain & another
Alipur Khan
Qimat Khan
(in CA 28112020)
(in CA 28612020)
(in CA 28712020)
(in CA 29012020)
(in CA 29112020)
(in CA 29212020)
(in CA 29312020)
(in CA 29412020)
(in CA 29512020)
(in CA 29612020)
fin CA 29712020)
(in CA 29912020)
fin CA 30012020)
fin CA 30412020)
fin CA 30612020)
Appellants
fin CA 23112020)
fin CA 23312020)
(in CA 23512020)
(in CA 23612020)
(in CA 23812020)
(in CA 24112020)
(in CA 24212020)
(in CA 24312020)
(in CA 25612020)
fin CA 26012020)
(in CA 26212020)
(in CA 26312020)
(in CA 26412020)
(in CA 26612020)
fin CA 27812020)
(in CA 27912020)
(in CA 28112020)
(in CA 28612020)
(in CA 28712020)
(in CA 29012020)
(in CA 29112020)
(in CA 29212020)
1
-
CIVIL APPEALS NO232. 233. 235, 236, 238, 241. 242, 243, 256, 260, 262, 263, 264, 266. 278, 279, 281,
286, 287, 290, 297, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 299. 300.304 & 306 OF 2020
3
Sher Alam & another 
(in CA 29312020)
Naikdar Khan 
(in CA 29412020)
Yousaf Khan & another 
(in CA 29512020)
Wall Khan 
(in CA 29612020)
Saifur Khan & another 
(in CA 29712020)
Nazir Gui & others 
(in CA 29912020)
Nadeem Ahrnad & others 
(in CA 30012020)
Muhammad Zada & another 
(in CA 30412020)
Mst. Saeeda Rehman 
(in CA 30612020)
Respondents
For the Appellants Mr. Shumail Ahmad Butt, Advocate
General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Mr. Atif Ali Khan, Addl. A.G. KPK
Barrister Qasim Wadood, Addl.A.G. KPK
with Erurn Shaheen, DD, HED
Mr. Asif Khan, Litigation Officer, HED.
Mr. Amin Jan, AD, Fisheries
Mr. Guizar Mahmood, AD Fisheries KPK.
Engr. Falak Niaz, AD(Dost)
Rajbar Khan, SDO, PHE, KPK
Mr. Sadullah, Asstt. Secretary, BOR, KPK
Mr. Fahim Ullah Khan, Sr. Law Officer,
KPPSC
Mr. Assad Ullah Khan, SO, P&D
Department.
Mr. Amanat Ullah Qureshi, Dy. Secy.
Finance Deptt. KPK
For the Respondents
Mr. Khalid Rahman, ASC
(in CA .286/2020)
R-2 In Person
(in CA .231/2020)
Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, AOR
(in CA .233/2020)
Mr. Afrian Karim Kundi, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
(in CA .235/2020)
Mr. Liaquat Ali Tareen, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
(in CA.241 and 30012020)
Mr. Saleem Ullah Ranazai, ASC
(in CA .242/2020 and 24312020)
Mr. Nasir Mehmood-P, ASC
(in CA. 6412020)
Mr. Muhammad Asif Yousafai, ASC
(in CA .262/2020 and CA28212020)
Mr. Waseem ud Din Khattak, ASC
(in CA.27812020 and CA.27912020)
Mr. Muzammil Khan, ASC
Syed Haziq Ali Shah, ASC
(in CA .260/2020)
R-1 In Person (w/o enter appearance)
- - 
I 
--
CWTh APPEALS NO. 23I, 233 235, 236, 238, 241. 242, 243, 256. 260, 262, 263, 264, 266, 278 279, 281,
286, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293. 294. 295, 29 .6, 297, 299. 300.304 & 306 OF 2020
(in CA.26312020)
Mr. Muhammad Asif, ASC
(in CA .266/2020)
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
CA .287/2020
Mr. Asad Jan, ASC
CA .299/2020
N.R.
CA .236/2020, CA23812020, 
CA .281/2020, CA .290.297/2020,
CA.30412020 and CA30612020.
Date of Hearing 25.11.2020
JUDGMENT
JJAZ UL ABSAN, J-. Through this single
judgment, we intend to decide Civil Appeals No.23 1, 233,
235, 236, 238, 241, 242, 243, 256, 260, 262, 263, 264, 2661
278, 279, 281, 286, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296,
297, 299, 300, 304 & 306 of 2020, as they involve a common
question of law.
2.
Through the instant Appeals, the Appellants have
challenged the impugned Judgments dated 14.10.2014
passed in Writ Petitions No.390-P Of 2012, etc by the
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. The Respondents had,
through the Constitutional Petitions, sought the
regularization of their services, which was allowed.
3.
The brief facts giving rise to this us are that the
Respondents were appointed on contract basis against
different posts in the erstwhile FATA. The Respondents on
different dates received termination notices and, certain
others were appointed in their place. The said steps were
assailed before the Peshawar High Court by way of
I 
CIY LAPPEALS NO,231, 233, 235, 236. 23$.241 242, 243 256, 260, 262. 263. 264, 266 278, 279. 281.
& 
28& 287, 290.291,292.293. 294. 295, 296, 297,299, 300.304 & 305 012020
Constitutional Petitions which were allowed vide order of the
High Court dated 05.10.2016. The said judgment of the High
Court was challenged before this Court. This Court set aside
the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter
back to the High Court for decision afresh vide order of this
Court dated 28.11.2018. The High Court vide the impugned
judgment allowed the Constitutional Petition of the
Respondents. As a result, the Appellant-Department was
ordered to regularize the services of the Respondents
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide
order dated 09.03.2020 in the following terms: -
"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. 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 applying its mind to
the same. He adds that even the laws under which
their appointments were made 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
CIVIL APPEALS NO.232. 233, 235, 236, 238. 24), 242, 243, 256, 250. 262, 263, 264, 266, 278. 279, 287,
286, 287, 290. 291 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 299 300, 304 305 OF 2020
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.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (hereinafter referred to as "KP") submits that
the Respondents were employed on contract basis against
project posts, hence, their employment was dependant on the
life of the project. He further contends that the learned High
Court erred in law by extending the application of the KP
Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 (hereinafter
referred to as "2009 Act") to the Respondents who were
employees of different departments in FATA and hence were
not covered by the provisions of the 2009 Act in terms of
Article 247(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Constitution"). Further,
that the jurisdiction of the High Court was specifically barred
to deal with the controversy considering the provision of
Article 247 of the Constitution as it existed at the relevant
time and was then a part of the Constitution. He adds that
the Presidential Order No. 13 of 1972 relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the Respondents only provides relief to a
specific class of employees, which was different and distinct
C0L APPEALS M231. 233, 235, 236, 238, 241, 242, 243, 256, 260, 262, 263, 264, 266, 278, 279, 281. 
7
286. 287, 290 292, 292, 293. 294. 295. 296, 297, 299 300 304 &306 OF 2020
from the class under which the Respondents fell. Further, the
High Court has erred in law by misapplying Section 19 of the
Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005.
6.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents mainly
argued that the Respondents ought to be treated at par with
other employees who have been regularized. He further
contends that under the 2009 Act, the Respondents should
be regularized as they were employed before the
commencement date of the 2009 Act. Further, the High Court
was vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters
related to FATA in light of the 25th Amendment. It has been
further contended that the Respondents were regularized
because of certain letters of the Government which allowed
regularization of certain employees, hence, on the same score,
the Respondents ought to be regularized as of right.
Moreover, most of the Respondents have been serving the
Appellant-Department satisfactorily, hence, they deserve to be
regularized on that score too.
7.
The questions which are before this Court for
determination are as follows:-
1. Could the High Court apply the 2009 Act on
FA TA/PA TA P
11. Could the High Court exercise jurisdiction
in matters related to FATA?
iii. 
What was the effect of Presidential Order
No. 13 of 1972?
COULD THE HIGH COURT APPLY THE 2009 ACT ON
FATA / PATA?
CW!LAPI'EALS1i0.231 233 235, 236, 238, 242, 242, 243. 256 260, 262, 263, 264, 266. 278. 279, 281. 
8
• 
286 287, 290. 297. 292, 293. 294, 295, 296. 297, 299. 300.304 &306 OF 2020
8. The learned High Court has held in the impugned
judgments that all the Respondents were employed before the
cut-off date of the 2009 Act. Further, that, Section 3 of the
2009 Act provides a mechanism of regularization of
employees' subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. In
this regard, the Preamble of the 2009 Act is reproduced below
for ease of reference as:-
WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the
appointment and regularization of services of certain
employees appointed on ad-hoc basis against civil posts
and contract basis against project posts in the Province
of the Kht,sber Pakhtunkhwa" [Underlining is ours]
The aforenoted preamble provides this Court with
an insight of what the legislature intended when it
promulgated the 2009 Act. The said preamble provides an
insight into the purpose and scope of the object of
regularization of certain categories of employees of the
Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Nowhere in the said
preamble does it provide that the 2009 Act shall be applicable
on FATA/PATA. The provision which addresses the question
of applicability of the 2009 Act relates to employees of KP and
not of FATA/PATA. Section 2 provides definitions which must
be taken into consideration while applying the 2009 Act.
Section 2(d) specifically defines "Government" as the
Government of KP. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the
learned High Court in its application of the 2009 Act to
FATA/PATA and resultantly, to the Respondents.
I
CIVIL APPEALS NO.232. 233. 235 236. 238. 241. 242. 243. 256, 260, 262, 253. 264, 20,278, 279. 282.
• 
286. 287. 290, 291. 292, 293. 294, 295, 296. 297. 299, 300. 304 &306 OF 2020
9. Even otherwise, it is worth noting that at the time
when the Respondents were employed and subsequently
when they were relieved; the 25th Amendment to the
Constitution was not in force. As such, the applicable
provision of the Constitution was Article 247 which provided
an elaborate mechanism for the Parliament on the extension
of the law to FATA/PATA. In this regard, Article 247(3) is
reproduced as:-
"(3) No act of a[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall
apply to any Federally Administered Tribal Area or to
any part thereof, unless the President so directs, and no
Act of a[MajliseShoora (Parliament)] or a Provincial
Assembly shall apply to a Provincially Administered
Tribal Area, or to any part thereof, unless the
Governor of the Province in which the Tribal Area is
situate, with the approval of the President, so directs;
and in giving such a direction with respect to any law,
the President or, as the case may be, the Governor, may
direct that the law shall, in its application to a Tribal
Area, or to a specified part thereof have effect subject to
such exceptions and modifications as may be specified
in the direction."
It is nobody's case that the provisions of the 2009
Act were extended to FATA / PATA by following the alorenoted
provisions of the Constitution. As such, the learned High
Court could not have extended the application of the 2009
Act, or any Act of Parliament or the Provincial Assembly for
that matter, to FATA/PATA on the touchstone of the principle
of casus omissus. The said principle categorically provides
that, where the legislature has not provided something in the
language of the law, the Court cannot travel beyond its
jurisdiction and read something into the law as the same
264, 206, 278, 279, 281. 
10
would be ultra vires the powers available to the Court under
the Constitution and would constitute an order without
jurisdiction. The same would also be against the principle of
Trichotomy of Powers upon which the State functions. All
three organs of the State have been given specific powers
under the law and as such, the said powers cannot be
overstepped. We are therefore inclined to hold that the
learned High Court in the impugned judgments has travelled
beyond its jurisdiction in applying the 2009 Act to the
Respondents which action is ex facie erroneous, beyond
lawful authority and without jurisdiction.
COULD THE HIGH COURT EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN
MATTERS RELATED TO FATA/PATA?
10. The 25th Amendment was passed in the National
Assembly on 24.05.2018 and subsequently by the Senate on
25.05.2018. Section 9 of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth
Amendment) Act, 2018 omitted Article 247 of the Constitution
with effect from 04.06.2018 and, inter alia, merged
FATA/PATA in the province of KP. The Respondents were
employed before the incorporation of the 25 th Amendment in
the Constitution and cannot be given retrospective effect. As
such, Article 247 applies to the matter at hand because the
Respondents were appointed at a time when the said Article
was in force and had not been omitted from the Constitution.
It has not even been argued and indeed could not be argued
that the 25 th amendment to the Constitution has
retrospective effect.
N
CIVIL APPEALS /10231. 233. 235, 236, 238, 242. 242. 243 256, 260, 262, 261 264, 265, 278, 279, 282,
286, 287.290. 292 292, 293, 294. 295. 296, 297, 299. 300, 304 6,306 OF 2020
11. Article 247 of the Constitution, inter alia, provided
that the High Court or the Supreme Court could not exercise
jurisdiction in a Tribal Area i.e. FATA/PATA unless the
Parliament provided otherwise. The only exception provided in
the said sub-article is that nothing would affect the
jurisdiction of the High Court or Supreme Court in relation to
a Tribal Area immediately before the commencing day. The
said exception does not apply in the instant controversy,
therefore, the main focus of our scrutiny will be Article 247(7)
inasmuch as it provides for an ouster of jurisdiction. For
ease of reference, Article 247(7) (as it was then) is reproduced
below as:-
"(7) Neither the Supreme Court nor a High Court shall
exercise any jurisdiction under the Constitution in relation to
a Tribal Area, unless a[MajliseShoora (Parliament)] by law
otherwise provides:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall affect the
jurisdiction  which the Supreme Court or a High Court
exercised in relation to a Tribal Area immediately before the
commencing day."
A bare perusal of the abovementioned Article of
the Constitution makes it clear that the lawmakers had
specifically ousted the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and
the High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under the
Constitution in relation to FATA/PATA. The learned High
Court in the impugned judgments has placed reliance on the
25th Amendment and exercised jurisdiction concerning the
controversy which is before this Court. As stated above, the
Respondents were appointed before the said Amendment was
introduced. As such, the 25th Amendment could not have
264. 266. 278. 279. 281.
 
12
been given retrospective application. Consequently, the
learned High Court, instead of examining the merits of the
cases of the Respondents on the touchstone of Article 247,
went beyond its powers and applied the 25 1h Amendment
retrospectively. Giving the 25 th Amendment retrospective
application would open a floodgate of unnecessary legal and
constitutional complications which can and should be
avoided by giving effect to the letter and spirit of the
Constitution and the intent and purpose of Article 247 and its
subsequent omission by way of the 25 th amendment to the
Constitution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of
Hidayat Ullah V. Muhammad Yourjas and Others [PLD 2020
SC 3621 the relevant part of which is reproduced below as:-
"5. Learned Advocate General has supported those
submission with the added ground that the orders passed by
the relevant fora under the FCR are all dated prior to the 251h
Constitutional Amendment which came to effect on
31.05.2018. Thus, the recommendations of the Council of
Elders dated 15.12.2015 until the decision of the review by
the PA TA Appellate Tribunal on 24.04.2018 predate the said
Constitutional Amendment. Consequently, at the relevant
time when the judgment was delivered, the provisions of
Article 24 7(7) of the Constitution were in force.
"6. The ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 199 of the Constitution is specific for the reason that
cause of action for civil relief of such Sersaya as well as the
residence of the parties and the locus of the corpus of the
dispute, namely, the Coal mines are located within the Kohat
Frontier Region. Consequently, the High Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Indeed, the aspect
of the case has not been considered in the impugned
judgment at all..."
12. 
It may also be noted that the Supreme Court and
High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction to Federally
Y - --
• 
PLIL APPEALS NO.232. 233,235. 236. 238. 242, 242. 243. 256. 260. 262. 263. 
66 278
2 
2. 
, 279. 281.
* 
286. Z 290. 291, 292, 293. 294, 295. 296. 297. 299, 300, 304& 306 OF 2020 
64  
13
Administered Tribal Areas) Act, 2018 was to be made
applicable from a date which was to be notified by the Federal
Government. However, no such date had been notified at the
time the High Court took cognizance of the matter and in any
event, it did not consider or apply its judicial mind to this
material aspect of the us before it. Even otherwise, if the said
Act is taken to be applicable from the date of its
promulgation, the Respondents cannot take the benefit of its
provisions because the Respondents were admittedly
employed before the said Act was promulgated while Article
247 of the Constitution still held the field. As such, the
learned High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the
petitions in question. We note that, in one of the impugned
judgments, the learned High Court has candidly conceded
that it is unaware whether the 2009 Act has been made
applicable to FATA/PATA or not. Given this, we are unable
see how and on what basis the learned High Court proceeded
to apply the said Act to the case of the Respondents.
WHAT WAS THE EFFECT OF PRESIDENTLAJJ ORDER NO.
13 OF 1972?
13. We note that some of the Respondents seek the
benefit of the Centrally Administered Tribal Areas (Employees'
Status) Order, 1972 ("Presidential Order No. 13 of 2012").
In essence, the learned Counsel for the said Respondents has
claimed that since all the employees recruited in FATA are
deemed to be employees of the Provincial Government on
deputation with the Federal Government, thus, the benefit of
the 2009 Act should automatically extend to them. In this
çJ%OL APPEALS N0,231. 233, 235, 236. 238, 241, 242. 243, 256, 260, 262, 263, 264. 266, 278, 279, 281. 
14
• 
286. 287, 290. 291, 292, 293, 294 295, 296.297. 299 300 304 & 306 OF 2020
regard, the Respondents have placed reliance on Paragraph 3
of the Presidential Order which reads as follows:-
"3. Status of the employees of the Centrally
Administered Tribal Areas:- Notwithstanding anything
contained in their conditions of service, the employees shall,
as from the appointed day, be employees of the Provincial
Government and shall work under the overall administrative
control of the Provincial Government, on the same terms and
conditions of service as respects remuneration, leave and
pension and the same rights as respects disciplinary
matters or tenure of office as were applicable to them
immediately before that day."
A bare perusal of the aforenoted paragraph shows
that the Presidential Order was applicable to those employees
who were already in service on the appointed day. What this
means, in essence, is that the said Presidential Order was
specific, and, as such, its application could not be extended
to cover the Respondents. The matter of interpretation of a
Presidential Order has already been dealt with by this Court.
In this regard, we find substance in the stance taken by the
learned AAG that the Respondents were appointed at a time
which is beyond the applicability of the Presidential Order
which was applicable only to those who were in service at the
time of promulgation of the said Order. The learned AAG has
placed reliance on this Court's Order dated 22.06.20 10 to
conclude that the Respondents were not in service at the time
of promulgation of Presidential Order No. 13 of 1972,
therefore, the same is inapplicable to them. We find that the
learned High Court has erred in law in applying the said
Presidential Order to the Respondents in a universal manner.
Even otherwise, employees of FATA as such cannot be treated
a
1
-.-
CIVIL APPEALS NO.231, 233. 235. 236, 2,38,241, 242, 243, 255, 260, 262, 263, 264, 266, 278, 272 281,
286, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296 297, 299, 300,304) 306 07 2020
as provincial employees as the same came under the control
of the Federal Government and not the Provincial
Government. For the said reasons, we are unfortunately
unable to agree with the learned High Court in its findings to
the effect that the Respondents were under the control of the
Provincial Government and as such, came under the
umbrella of the 2009 Act.
14. The learned High Court has in the impugned
judgments held that, by not regularizing the Respondents
and by regularizing others, the Appellants have committed
discrimination. The said finding is not based on any legal or
factual basis. Firstly, even when others have been
regularized, the circumstances and terms and conditions of
their employment were different. If some have illegally been
regularized, the petitioners cannot claim equal treatment with
them. If and when the question of legality and validity of their
regularization comes before us, we will pass appropriate
orders after considering the facts, circumstances and merits
of each case. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that
regularization is not a vested right but requires a statutory
basis which is admittedly absent in the instant case. As such,
the present Respondents merely rely on the fact that others
have been regularized and so should they, which is not a
legal ground per se. Where a contractual employee wishes to
be regularized, he must demonstrate statutory basis for such
CS
a claim, in the absence of which, relief cannot be granted
solely on the principle of "similarly placed". Such a course of
Cn'IL APPEALS N0.231, 233, 235. 236, 238, 241, 242, 243. 256, 260. 262, 263. 264, 266 278, 279, 282. 
16
• 
286, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293. 294. 295. 296, 297. 299 300. 304 & 306 OF 2020
action would tantamount to making one right out of two
wrongs which is not permissible in the law.
CAN THE RESPONDENTS, BEING PROJECT EMPLOYEES,
CLAIM REGULARIZATION BASED ON LONG SERVICE?
15.
It is trite that long service is no ground for
regularization. As stated above, regularization has to be
supported by legislation and is not an automatically accruing
right. Even if we agree with the findings of the learned High
Court that the Respondents have been serving efficiently for
many years, it is worth noting that the fact that the
Respondents were project employees has not been
controverted. As such, Section 3 in its plain language
excludes project employees from the benefit of regularization
under the provisions of the 2009 Act. Therefore, keeping in
view the language of the 2009 Act itself, there appears no
lawful basis for the Respondents to claim beneficial
interpretation of the 2009 Act as the Court cannot overstep
its powers to add language to a statute which the legislature
has not provided.
16.
The Impugned Judgments of the learned High
Court proceed on an incorrect factual and legal premise and
have erroneously applied the law, rules and regulations to the
facts and circumstances of the cases before it. A clear legal
and jurisdictional error in exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan is floating on the surface of the record
which makes the judgments unsustainable.
Announced in Court on 2..% .01 fl at
Islamabad
GIVE APPEALS N0.231. 233. 235. 236 238. 241. 242, 243 256. 260. 262. 263. 264, 266, 278. 279. 281,
286,287,290 291.292.293. 294, 995 29r.297299,300 304 306 0? 2020
17. Therefore, for reasons recorded above, we allow
the titled Appeals and set aside the Impugned Judgments of
the Peshawar High Court passed in Writ Petition No.390-P of
2012, etc.
—Not Approved For Reportj4q
