IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, C.J. 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL 
APPEALS 
NO. 
759/2020, 
1448/2016, 
1483/2019, 
760/2020, 761/2020, 1213/2020 TO 1230/2020 
(On 
appeal 
from 
the 
judgments/orders 
dated 
20.06.2017, 
18.09.2015, 27.10.2016, 27.03.2018, 14.03.2016, 07.04.2016, 
11.09.2017, 19.09.2017, 16.10.2017, 18.04.2018, 03.05.2018, 
17.05.2018, 24.05.2018, 18.10.2018, 11.10.2018, 04.07.2017, 
20.11.2018, 15.05.2019 and 07.03.2019 of the Peshawar High 
Court, Peshawar; Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-
Qaza), Swat; KPK Service Tribunal, Peshawar; and Peshawar High 
Court, D.I. Khan Bench passed in Writ Petition Nos. 1714-P/2015, 
3592-P/2014, 3909-P/2015, 602-P/2015 and 4814-P/2017; Civil 
Revision No.493-P/2015; Writ Petition Nos. 1851-P/2014, 3245-
P/2015, 429-M/2014 and 3449-P/2014; Appeal Nos.62/2020, 
63/2020 and 326/2015; and Writ Petitions No.778-M/2017, 1678-
P/2016, 3452-P/2017, 4675-P/2017, 2446-P/2016, 3315-P/2018, 
667-D/2016, 2096-P/2016, 2389-P/2018 and 965-P/2014) 
 
 
1. 
Civil Appeal No.759/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, 
Peshawar etc. Vs. Intizar Ali etc. 
 
2. 
Civil Appeal No.1448/2016: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education, Peshawar etc. Vs. Javed 
Khan etc. 
 
3. 
Civil Appeal No.1483/2019: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Education (E & S.E) K.P, Peshawar etc. Vs. Muhammad Ilyas 
 
4. 
Civil Appeal No.760/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, 
Civil Secretariat, Peshawar etc. Vs. Behramand etc. 
 
5. 
Civil Appeal No.761/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
Peshawar etc. Vs. Kifayatullah etc. 
 
6. 
Civil Appeal No.1213/2020: 
Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education, Govt. of 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Secretariat, Peshawar etc. Vs. Mst. 
Safia Begum etc. 
 
7. 
Civil Appeal No.1214/2020: 
Government of K.P. through Secretary (E & S) Education, 
Peshawar etc. Vs. Akhter Biland 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 2 :-
 
8. 
Civil Appeal No.1215/2020: 
District Education Officer (Male) District Swabi etc. Vs. 
Muhammad Israr & another 
 
9. 
Civil Appeal No.1216/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education Peshawar etc. Vs. 
Shujaullah 
 
10. 
Civil Appeal No.1217/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education Peshawar etc. Vs. Sheraz 
Badshah etc. 
 
11. 
Civil Appeal No.1218/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, 
Civil Secretariat, Peshawar etc. Vs. Zahid Ali 
 
12. 
Civil Appeal No.1219/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, 
Peshawar etc. Vs. Shah Hussain 
 
13. 
Civil Appeal No.1220/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education Peshawar etc. Vs. 
Muhammad Hayat 
 
14. 
Civil Appeal No.1221/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education, Peshawar etc. Vs. Dir 
Nawab Khan etc. 
 
15. 
Civil Appeal No.1222/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education Peshawar etc. Vs. 
Muhammad Faridoon Khan etc. 
 
16. 
Civil Appeal No.1223/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education Peshawar etc. Vs. Shafiq 
Ahmad 
 
17. 
Civil Appeal No.1224/2020: 
District Education Officer (Male) Charsadda etc. Vs. Yahiya 
Jan 
 
18. 
Civil Appeal No.1225/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary 
& 
Secondary 
Education 
(E&SE) 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar etc. Vs. Syed Attaullah Shah etc. 
 
19. 
Civil Appeal No.1226/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Elementary & Secondary Education, Peshawar etc. Vs. Noor 
ud Din 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 3 :-
20. 
Civil Appeal No.1227/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, 
Peshawar etc. Vs. Asmatullah Khan 
 
21. 
Civil Appeal No.1228/2020: 
Director 
Elementary 
& 
Secondary 
Education 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar etc. Vs. Mst. Bakht Zari etc. 
 
22. 
Civil Appeal No.1229/2020: 
Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education KP, Peshawar 
etc. Vs. Attaullah Jan 
 
23. 
Civil Appeal No.1230/2020: 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary 
Communication & Works Department, Peshawar etc. Vs. 
Sajjad Ahmad & another 
 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Shumail Butt, Advocate General, KPK 
Barrister Qasim Wadood, Addl.A.G., KPK 
Mr. Atif Ali Khan, Addl.A.G., KPK 
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl.A.G., KPK 
Mr. Iftikhar Ghani, DEO (Male) Bunir 
Mr. Muhammad Aslam, S.O. (Litigation) 
Mr. Fazle Khaliq, Litigation Officer/DEO 
(Male) Swat 
Mr. Fazal Rehman, Principle/DEO Swat 
Ms. Roheen Naz, ADO (Legal)/DEO(F) 
Nowshera 
Malik Muhammad Ali, S.O. C&W 
Department, KPK 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan, SDO/XEN C&W 
(In all cases) 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Sh. Riaz-ul-Haque, ASC 
(In C.As.759/2020, 1483/2019, 760, 1214, 1215, 1217, 
1218, 1220 &  1223/2020) 
 
Mr. Fazal Shah, ASC 
(Respondents 
No.1 
& 
2 
in 
C.A.1448/2016, 
respondents No.2 to 4, 8, 99, 11 & 12 in 
C.A.1213/2020 & respondents in C.A.1229/2020) 
 
Mr. Abdul Munim Khan, ASC 
(In C.A.761/2020)  
 
Barrister Umer Aslam Khan, ASC 
(Respondent No.1 in C.A.1213/2020) 
 
Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC 
(In C.A.1221/2020) 
 
Mr. Misbah Ullah Khan, ASC 
(In C.A.1222/2020) 
 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
(Respondents No.1, 3 to 8 in C.A.1225/2020) 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 4 :-
 
Mr. Saleem Ullah Ranazai, ASC 
(In C.A.1227/2020) 
 
Chaudhry Muhammad Shuaib, ASC 
(Respondent No.2 in C.A.1228/2020) 
 
Mr. Fida Gul, ASC 
(In C.A.1230/2020) 
 
Nemo 
(Respondents No. 5 to 7 & 10 in C.A.1213/2020, 
respondents 
in 
C.As.1216/2020, 
1219/2020, 
1224/2020 & 1226/2020, respondent No.2 in 
C.A.1225/2020 & respondents No.1 & 3 in 
C.A.1228/2020) 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
03.06.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through these appeals 
by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellants have called in 
question the judgments of the learned Peshawar High Court and 
KPK Service Tribunal whereby the Writ Petitions, Service Appeals 
and Civil Revision filed by the respondents were allowed and they 
were re-instated in service under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked 
Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
respondents 
were 
appointed on different posts in various 
departments of Government of KPK on various dates in the years 
1995 & 1996 on temporary/fixed/ad-hoc basis. Later on their 
services were terminated by the appellants vide different orders 
passed in the years 1996 & 1997 on the ground that they lack 
requisite qualification and experience. In the year 2010, the Federal 
Government enacted the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 
2010 for the purpose of providing relief to persons who were 
appointed in a corporation/autonomous/semi-autonomous bodies or 
in Government service during the period from 01.11.1993 to 
30.11.1996 and were dismissed, removed or terminated from 
service during the period from 01.11.1996 to 12.10.1999. Following 
the Federal Government, the provincial Government of KPK also 
promulgated 
the 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
Sacked 
Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012 for reinstatement of sacked employees, who 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 5 :-
were dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the 
period from 1st day of November, 1996 to 31st day of December, 
1998. Pursuant to the said legislation, a number of employees were 
reinstated but the respondents were not given the said relief, which 
led to their filing of writ petitions, service appeals and Civil Revision 
arising out of a suit before the Peshawar High Court and KPK 
Service Tribunal, which have been allowed vide impugned 
judgments mainly on the ground that as the similarly placed 
employees have been reinstated, the respondents are also entitled 
for the same relief. Hence, these appeals by leave of the Court.  
3. 
 
Learned Advocate General, KPK, contended that the 
respondents were temporary employees and the relief sought for 
under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 
2012 was only meant for those employees who were appointed on 
regular basis having the prescribed qualification and experience for 
the respective post during the period from 01.11.1993 to 30.11.1996 
and were dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the 
period from 01.11.1996 to 31.12.1998. Contends that even the 
respondents did not have the requisite qualification and experience 
at the time of their first appointment and they obtained the same 
after their termination from service. Contends that the learned High 
Court 
and 
the 
Tribunal 
in 
the 
impugned 
judgments 
has 
acknowledged this fact that the respondents did not have the 
requisite qualification yet they were ordered to be reinstated. 
Contends that under Section 7 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked 
Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012, to avail the benefit of 
reinstatement an employee had to file an application within thirty 
days of the commencement of the Act i.e. 20.09.2012 but none of the 
respondents have fulfilled that condition. Contends that this Court 
has held that the requirement of Section 7 of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 is 
mandatory in nature and if an employee has not complied with the 
spirit of said provision, no relief can be given to him. Lastly contends 
that in such circumstances, the impugned judgments are liable to be 
set aside.  
4. 
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Sr. ASC for respondents 
No.1, 3 to 8 in C.A.1225/2020 contended that minutes of meeting of 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 6 :-
the department held on 02.09.2015 show that all the respondents 
had applied within the stipulated period of time. Contends that 
factual controversy is involved in the present appeals as the 
disputed questions whether the respondents applied within the 30 
days cutoff period after the commencement of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 and 
whether they had the requisite qualification/experience having 
assailed in the present appeals, therefore, the present appeals are 
not maintainable. Contends that no question of law of public 
importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan is involved in the present appeals, 
therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Contends that the learned 
High Court has not passed any injunctive order and has only 
remanded the cases back to the department for reconsideration on 
the basis of factual controversy. Contends that the respondents 
were regular employees and the term ‘temporary’ only refers to 
those employees who are on probation.  
5. 
 
Sh. Riaz-ul-Haque, learned ASC for the respondents in 
C.As.759/2020, 1483/2019, 760, 1214, 1215, 1217, 1218, 1220 & 
1223/2020 contended that the onus to prove that whether the 
respondents applied within 30 days cut-off period after the 
commencement of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012 and whether they had the requisite 
qualification/experience 
is 
burdened 
with 
the 
appellant 
(Government) and they never raised this very issue before the High 
Court. On our specific query, he admitted that he does not know the 
date as to when the respondents had applied for re-employment in 
pursuance of Section 7 of the said Act.  
6. 
 
In response to our query as to whether the respondents 
were regular employees having requisite qualification/experience 
and had applied within 30 days, Mr. Fazal Shah, learned ASC for 
respondents No.1 & 2 in C.A.1448/2016, respondents No.2 to 4, 8, 
99, 11 & 12 in C.A.1213/2020 & respondents in C.A.1229/2020 
admitted that the respondents were appointed on temporary/ad hoc 
basis. However, he kept on insisting that the respondents were duly 
qualified and possessed requisite qualification, therefore, the 
impugned judgments may be upheld.  
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 7 :-
7. 
 
Barrister 
Umer 
Aslam 
Khan, 
learned 
ASC 
for 
respondent No. 1 in CA 1213/2019 stated that the respondent had 
equivalent to intermediate qualification but did not have the 
sanad/certificate at the time of appointment, which was procured 
later on in the year 2011. He supported the impugned judgments by 
stating 
that 
the 
respondent 
possesses 
all 
the 
requisite 
qualification/experience, therefore, he deserves to be reinstated.  
8. 
 
Mr. 
Saleemullah 
Ranazai, 
learned 
ASC for 
the 
respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1227/2019 contended that the 
respondent was a regular employee and was wrongly terminated 
from service. Contends that after the promulgation of Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012, the 
respondent had filed the application within the prescribed period of 
30 days. He further contends that he was holding the degree of 
Bachelor of Arts at that time whereas the required qualification was 
matriculation.  
9. 
 
Mr. Fida Gul, learned counsel for the respondent in Civil 
Appeal No.1230/2019 argued that both the respondents were 
appointed in Khyber Agency at the relevant time. Contends they had 
filed the application for statutory benefit/relief well within time and 
they had the requisite qualification/experience.  
10. 
 
M/s Abdul Munim Khan, Taufiq Asif, Misbahullah 
Khan, Ch. Muhammad Shoaib learned ASCs have adopted the 
arguments of Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Sr. ASC.  
11. 
 
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at 
extensive length, the questions which crop up for our consideration 
are (i) whether the respondents were regular employees of the 
Government 
of 
KPK, 
(ii) 
whether 
they 
had 
the 
requisite 
qualification/experience at the time of appointment, (iii) whether 
they had applied for reinstatement within the cutoff period of 30 
days as stipulated in Section 7 of the Act and (iv) what is the effect 
of our judgment passed in Muhammad Afzal Vs. Secretary 
Establishment (2021 SCMR 1569) whereby the Sacked Employees 
(Re-instatement) Act, 2010 enacted by Federal Government for 
similarly placed employees of Federal Government was held ultra 
vires the Constitution.   
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 8 :-
12. 
 
Firstly, we will take up the issue as to whether the 
respondents were ‘regular employees’ and had the requisite 
qualification/experience 
at 
the 
time 
of 
appointment. 
Before 
proceeding with this issue, it would be advantageous to reproduce 
the very Preamble of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012, which reads as under:- 
“Whereas it is expedient to provide relief to those sacked 
employees who were appointed on regular basis to a civil 
post in the Province of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and who 
possessed the prescribed qualification and experience 
required for the said post, during the period from 1st day of 
November 1993 to the 30th day of November, 1996 (both 
days inclusive) and were dismissed, removed, or terminated 
from service during the period from 1st day of November 
1996 to 31st day of December 1998 on various grounds.” 
 
13. 
 
The 
intent 
behind 
the 
promulgation 
of 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 clearly 
reflects that it was a legislation promulgated to benefit those regular 
employees sacked without any plausible justification enabling them 
to avail the same so that they may be accommodated within the 
parameters of legal attire. A bare reading of the Preamble of the Act 
shows that it was enacted to give relief to those sacked employees, 
who were appointed on ‘regular basis’ to a civil post in the Province 
of 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
while 
possessing 
the 
prescribed 
qualification and experience for the said post during the period from 
1st day of November, 1993 to the 30th day of November, 1996 (both 
days inclusive) and were dismissed, removed or terminated from 
service during the period from 1st day of November, 1996 to 31st day 
of December, 1998. Therefore, keeping in view the intent of the 
Legislature, it can safely be said that to become eligible to get the 
relief of reinstatement, one has to fulfill three conditions i.e. (i) the 
aggrieved person should be a regular employee, (ii) he must have 
the requisite qualification & experience for the post during the period 
from 01.11.1993 to 30.11.1996 and not later, and (iii) he was 
dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period 
from 01.11.1996 to 31.12.1998. At the time of hearing of these 
appeals, we had directed the learned Advocate General so also the 
respondents to provide us a chart containing dates of appointments 
of the respondents, whether they were regular employees or not, 
their qualifications/experience at the time of appointment, dates of 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 9 :-
termination, dismissal or removal from service and the dates on 
which they had filed applications to avail the benefit under Section 7 
of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 
2012. The requisite data was provided to us through various CMAs. 
We have minutely looked at the credentials of each of the 
respondent and found that except (respondent Asmatullah in Civil 
Appeal No. 1227/2020) none of the respondents was appointed on 
regular basis. Although a very few, like a drop in a bucket, had the 
requisite qualification/experience, had applied within thirty days, 
the cutoff period as mandated but one thing is common in all of 
them, that they all were daily wagers/temporary/fixed employees. 
The foremost and mandatory condition to become eligible to get the 
relief 
under 
the 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
Sacked 
Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012 was that the aggrieved person should be a 
regular employee stricto sensu whereas all the respondents do not 
meet the said statutory requirement. If an employee does not meet 
the mandatory condition to become eligible for reinstatement that he 
should be a regular employee then even if he was dismissed / 
removed / terminated from service, he cannot get the relief of 
reinstatement because he has not fulfilled the basic requirement of 
the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 
2012. Admittedly, the respondents were temporary/fixed/ad-
hoc/contract employees. The temporary employees have no vested 
right to claim reinstatement/regularization. This Court in a number 
of cases has held that temporary/contract/project employees have 
no 
vested 
right 
to 
claim 
regularization. 
The 
direction 
for 
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance cannot be 
issued unless the employee claiming regularization had been 
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with 
relevant rules and against the sanctioned vacant posts, which 
admittedly is not the case before us. This Court in the case of PTCL 
Vs. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) has categorically held 
that ad-hoc, temporary or contract employee has no vested right of 
regularization and this type of appointment does not create any 
vested right of regularization in favour of the appointee. In an 
unreported judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed in Civil Petition Nos. 
210 & 300 of 2017, this Court has candidly held that the sacked 
employee, as defined in the Act, required to be regular employee to 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 10 :-
avail the benefit of reinstatement and if an employee is not a regular 
employee his case does not fall within the ambit of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012. So far as 
the argument of learned counsel for the respondents Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman that the respondents were regular employees and the term 
‘temporary’ refers to those employees who are on probation is 
concerned, the same is misconceived. Permanent or regular 
employment is one where there is no defined employment date 
except date of superannuation whereas temporary position is one 
that has a defined/limited duration of employment with specified 
date unless it is extended. If a person is employed against a 
permanent vacancy, there is specifically 
mentioned in his 
appointment letter that he will be kept on probation for a specific 
period of time but in the case of a temporary employee it is 
mentioned that he is employed on temporary basis either for a cutoff 
period of time or for the completion of a certain period either related 
to a project or assignment. The appointment letters of the 
respondents 
clearly 
show 
that 
they 
were 
appointed 
on 
temporary/fixed basis and not on regular basis.   
14. 
 
Now we would advert to the second question as to 
whether the respondents had the requisite qualification/experience 
at the time of appointment. Although, when none of the respondents 
was a regular employee, the question whether they had the requisite 
qualification/experience at the time of appointment or not looses its 
significance but despite that we have carefully perused the 
particulars of each of the respondents and found that except 2/3 
respondents none had the requisite qualification and experience at 
the time of appointment. Even otherwise, as discussed above, if an 
employee had the requisite qualification/experience but he was 
employed on adhoc/temporary/daily wages, he could not claim 
reinstatement under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012. 
15. 
 
The third question is whether the respondents had 
applied for reinstatement within the cutoff period of 30 days as 
stipulated in Section 7 after the commencement of the Act, 2012. 
Under Section 7(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012, to avail the benefit of reinstatement/re-
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 11 :-
appointment, an employee had to file an application within thirty 
days of the commencement of the Act i.e. 20.09.2012. Before 
discussing this aspect of the matter, it would be advantageous to 
reproduce the said Section for ready reference. It reads as under:- 
“7.         Procedure for appointment.---(1) A sacked 
employee, may file an application, to the concerned 
Department within a period of thirty days from the 
date of commencement of this Act, for his appointment 
in the said Department:-- 
  
Provided that no application for appointment received 
after the due date shall be entertained.” 
 
 
16. 
 
In an unreported judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed in 
Civil Appeal No. 967/2020, the respondent was appointed as C.T. 
Teacher on 25.02.1996 and was terminated from service on 
13.02.1997. After the promulgation of KPK Sacked Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012, the respondent submitted an application 
for his reinstatement, which did not find favour with the department 
and ultimately the matter came to this Court wherein it has been 
found that neither the respondent was a regular employee nor he 
had applied for reinstatement within thirty days within the purview 
of Section 7 of the Act. It would be in fitness of things to reproduce 
the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court, which read as 
under:- 
“Section 7 of the Act of 2012, requires an employee to 
make an application to the concerned department 
within a period of thirty days from the date of 
commencement of the Act of 2012. The respondent did 
not apply under the Act of 2012 for his reinstatement 
rather on the basis that some of the employees were 
granted benefits of the Act of 2012, he also filed a writ 
petition taking chance of his reinstatement. The very 
question that whether the respondent applied under the 
Act of 2012 for reinstatement being disputed question, 
the High Court in the first place was not justified in 
exercising its writ jurisdiction, for that, the very fact that 
the respondent has applied under the Act of 2012 for 
reinstatement into service, was not established on the 
record.  
 
7. 
The learned Additional Advocate General further 
contends that the respondent was a temporary 
employee and thus, was also not entitled to be 
reinstated into service under the Act of 2012. Such 
aspect of the matter has not been considered by the 
High Court in the impugned judgment. We, therefore, do 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 12 :-
not consider it appropriate to examine the same and 
give our finding on it. The very fact that the respondent 
has not applied under the Act of 2012 for being 
reinstated into service, Section 7 of the Act of 2012 was 
not complied with and thus, the High Court was not 
justified in passing of the impugned judgment, allowing 
the writ petition filed by the respondent.”  
 
(Underlined to lay emphasis) 
 
17. 
 
Similarly, in Civil Petition No. 639-P/2014, this Court 
has held that in order to avail the benefit of reinstatement under the 
KPK Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012, it is necessary for 
an employee to approach the concerned department in terms of 
Section 7 within thirty days and in case of failure, as per its proviso, 
he would not be entitled for appointment in terms thereof. We have 
noticed that except for a very few respondents none of them have 
fulfilled the mandatory condition of applying/approaching the 
department within 30 days after the commencement of the Act i.e. 
20.09.2012, therefore, they are not entitled to seek the relief sought 
for. The respondents who had applied within time were not regular 
employees, therefore, even though they had applied within time but 
it would not make any difference as they do not fulfill the very basic 
requirement for reinstatement i.e. that to avail the benefit of 
reinstatement, an employee should be a regular employee. In a 
number of judgments, the superior courts of the country have held 
that when meaning of a statute is clear and plain language of 
statute requires no other interpretation then intention of Legislature 
conveyed through such language has to be given full affect. Plain 
words must be expounded in their natural and ordinary sense. 
Intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from language 
used and attention has to be paid to what has been said and not to 
that what has not been said. This Court in Government of KPK Vs. 
Abdul Manan(2021 SCMR 1871) has held that when the intent of the 
legislature is manifestly clear from the wording of the statute, the 
rules of interpretation required that such law be interpreted as it is 
by assigning the ordinary English language and usage to the words 
used, unless it causes grave injustice which may be irremediable or 
leads to absurd situations, which could not have been intended by 
the legislature. In JS Bank Limited Vs. Province of Punjab through 
Secretary Food, Lahore (2021 SCMR 1617), it has been held by this 
Court that for the interpretation of statutes purposive rather than a 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 13 :-
literal approach is to be adopted and any interpretation which 
advances the purpose of the Act is to be preferred rather than an 
interpretation, which defeats its objects. We are of the view that the 
very object of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012, as is apparent from its very Preamble, was 
to give relief to only those persons, who were regularly appointed 
having possessed the prescribed qualification/experience during the 
period from 01.11.1993 to 30.12.1996 and were thereafter 
dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period 
from 01.11.1996 to 31.12.1998. The learned High Court and the 
Service Tribunal did not take into consideration the above aspects of 
the matter and passed the impugned orders, which are against the 
very intent of the law.  
18. 
 
On 
the 
same 
analogy 
on 
which 
the 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 was 
enacted, earlier Legislature had enacted Sacked Employees (Re-
instatement) Act, 2010 for the sacked employees of Federal 
Government. However, this Court in the recent judgment reported at 
Muhammad Afzal Vs. Secretary Establishment (2021 SCMR 1569) 
has declared the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 to be 
ultra vires the Constitution by holding as under:- 
“Legislature had, through the operation of the Act of 2010, 
attempted to extend undue benefit to a limited class of 
employees---In terms of the Act of 2010 upon the 'reinstatement' 
of the 'sacked employees', the 'status' of the employees 
currently in service was violated as the reinstated employees 
were granted seniority over them---Legislature had, through 
legal fiction, deemed that employees from a certain time period 
were reinstated and regularized without due consideration of 
how the fundamental rights of the people currently serving 
would be affected---Rights of the employees who had completed 
codal formalities through which civil servants were inducted 
into service and complied with the mandatory requirements laid 
down by the regulatory framework could not be allowed to be 
placed at a disadvantageous position through no fault of their 
own---Act of 2010 was also in violation of the right enshrined 
under Art. 4 of the Constitution, that provided citizens equal 
protection before law, as backdated seniority was granted to 
the 'sacked employees' who, out of their own volition, did not 
challenge their termination or removal under their respective 
regulatory frameworks---Given that none of the 'sacked 
employees' opted for the remedy available under law upon 
termination during the limitation period, the transaction had 
essentially become one that was past and closed; they had 
foregone their right to challenge their orders of termination or 
removal---Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 had 
extended undue advantage to a certain class of citizens thereby 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 14 :-
violating the fundamental rights (Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the 
Constitution) of the employees in the Service of Pakistan and 
was thus void and ultra vires the Constitution.” 
 
19. 
 
This judgment in Muhammad Afzal supra case was 
challenged before this Court in its review jurisdiction and this Court 
by dismissing Civil Review Petition Nos. 292 to 302/2021 etc upheld 
the judgment by holding that “the Sacked Employees (Re-
instatement) Act, 2010 is held to be violative of inter alia Articles 25, 
18, 9 and 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 
and therefore void under the provisions of Article 8 of the 
Constitution.” The bare perusal of the Preamble of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 shows 
that since the Federal Government had passed a similar Act namely 
Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010, the Government of 
KPK following the footprints of Federal Government also passed the 
Act of 2012. It would be in order to reproduce the relevant portion of 
the Preamble, which reads as under:- 
 
“Whereas the Federal Government has also given relief to the 
sacked employees by enactment; 
And Whereas the Government of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
has also decided to appoint these sacked employees on 
regular basis in the public interest”   
 
20. 
 
The term 'ultra vires' literally means "beyond powers" or 
"lack of power". It signifies a concept distinct from "illegality". In the 
loose or the widest sense, everything that is not warranted by law is 
illegal but in its proper or strict connotation "illegal" refers to that 
quality which makes the act itself contrary to law. Constitution is the 
supreme law of a country. All other statutes derive power from the 
constitution and are deemed subordinate to it. If any legislation 
over-stretches itself beyond the powers conferred upon it by the 
constitution, or contravenes any constitutional provision, then such 
laws are considered unconstitutional or ultra vires the constitution. 
When two laws are enacted for the same purpose though in different 
jurisdictions and one of the same has been declared ultra vires the 
Constitution by the Apex Court of the country, then according to the 
dictates of justice, the other enacted on the same analogy also 
looses its sanctity and ethically becomes null and void. However, at 
this stage, we do not want to comment on this aspect of the matter 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 15 :-
in detail. Even if we keep aside this aspect of the matter, as 
discussed in the preceding paragraphs, there is nothing available on 
the record, which could favour the respondents. 
21. 
 
So far as the argument of Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned 
Sr. ASC that as factual controversy is involved, these appeals are 
liable to be dismissed is concerned, even on this point alone the 
impugned judgments are liable to be set aside because it is settled 
law that superior courts could not engage in factual controversies as 
the matters pertaining to factual controversy can only be resolved 
after thorough inquiry and recording of evidence in a civil court. 
Reliance is placed on Fateh Yarn Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner Inland 
Revenue (2021 SCMR 1133). Admittedly, the learned High Court 
while passing the impugned judgments had went into the domain of 
factual controversy, which was not permissible under the law. We 
have noticed that in Civil Appeal No. 1213/2020 although the 
respondents had filed the civil suit but they were not appointed on 
regular basis and most of them do not have the required 
qualification/experience at the time of their appointment. Learned 
counsel had stated that no question of law of public importance 
within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is involved in these appeals. However, 
this argument of the learned counsel is misconceived. The question 
of applicability of Article 212(3) of the Constitution arises only when 
any party has approached this Court against the judgment passed 
by the Federal Service Tribunal but except Civil Appeal Nos. 1218 to 
1220/2020 same is not the case here, therefore, this has no 
relevance in the present proceedings. Even in the aforesaid Civil 
Appeals, the respondents were neither regular employees nor they 
had the requisite qualification/experience at the time of their 
appointment nor had they filed the application within thirty days 
within the purview of Section 7 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked 
Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012, therefore, as discussed in the 
preceding paragraphs, the learned Service Tribunal could not have 
directed for their reinstatement.  
22. 
 
Mr. Fida Gul, learned counsel for the respondents in 
Civil 
Appeal 
No.1230/2019 
had 
contended 
that 
both 
the 
respondents were appointed on regular basis in Khyber Agency at 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 16 :-
the relevant time, had filed the application within time and had the 
requisite qualification, therefore, they deserve to be reinstated in 
service. However, we have noticed that they were Agency Cadre 
(FATA) employees. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012 was applicable to the Provincial Employees 
of KPK as explained in para 2(b) & (e) of the Act and has never been 
extended to FATA. According to Article 247 of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Provincial Assembly of 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa could not legislate for FATA. We have noted 
that only the residents of Khyber Agency were eligible to be 
appointed but it is a fact that both the respondents were residents of 
Charsadda/KPK. Even otherwise, we have found that respondent 
Sajjad Ahmad was initially appointed as Mate (BS-02) in the office 
of Chief Engineer (FATA) and was subsequently promoted to the post 
of Worker Superintendent (BPS-09) but according to the method of 
recruitment, the post of Worker Superintendent was required to be 
filled in by initial appointment and not by promotion amongst the 
Mate, therefore, his promotion was irregular. As far as respondent 
Amir Ilyas is concerned, he was appointed as Store Munshi in FATA 
but we have been informed that the Stores were closed in FATA on 
26.11.1992, therefore, his subsequent appointment as Store Munshi 
on 26.12.1995 was irregular.  
23. 
 
We have found that so far as the case of the respondent 
Asmatullah in Civil Appeal No. 1227/2020 is concerned, the same is 
different. Although, he was initially appointed as Security Sergeant 
in BPS-05 for a period of six months by the then Agricultural 
Engineer, DI Khan but subsequently, he was regularized against the 
post of Crank Shaft Grinder (BPS-05) vide order dated 02.04.1996. 
He had the requisite qualification/experience and had also applied 
for reinstatement on 09.10.2012 i.e. within thirty days of the 
commencement 
of 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
Sacked 
Employees 
(Appointment) Act, 2012, therefore, to his extent the impugned 
judgment is liable to be maintained.  
24. 
 
For what has been discussed above, all the appeals 
except Civil Appeal No. 1227/2020 are allowed and the impugned 
judgments are set aside. As far as Civil Appeal No. 1227/2020 is 
concerned, the same is dismissed.  
CIVIL APPEALS NO.759/2020, 1448/2016, 1483/2019, 760, 761, 1213 TO 1230/2020 
-: 17 :-
25. 
 
Before parting with the judgment, we observe with 
concern that in a number of cases the statutory departments, due to 
one reason or the other, do not formulate statutory rules of service, 
which in other words is defiance of service structure, which 
invariably affects the sanctity of the service. It is often stressed by 
the superior courts that framing of statutory rules of service is 
warranted and necessary as per law. It is invariably true that an 
employee unless given a peace of mind cannot perform its functions 
effectively and properly. The premise behind formulation of statutory 
rules of service is gauged from Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. An employee who derives its 
employment by virtue of an act or statute must know the contours of 
his employment and those niceties of the said employment must be 
backed by statutory formation. Unless rules are not framed 
statutorily 
it 
is 
against 
the 
very 
fundamental/structured 
employment as it must be guaranteed appropriately as per notions 
of the law and equity derived from the Constitution being the 
supreme law. 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
Approved For Reporting 
 
Announced on 28.01.2022 
Khurram 
