2026 S C M R 838

 2026 S C M R 838

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan,

JJ

MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and another

---Petitioners

Versus

SHER BAHADUR ---Respondent

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2975 of 2024, decided on 4th

September, 2025. (Against the Judgment dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Federal

Service Tribunal, Camp Officer, Peshawar in Service Appeal No.

67(R)CS of 2023).

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts.25 & 212(3)---Employment---Regularization of ad-hoc

employees---Similarly placed employees already regularized---Date

from which regularization is to be reckoned---Scope---The respondent

was initially appointed by WAPDA on ad-hoc basis on 21.11.2013---In

2016, WAPDA advertised the same post and directed him to appear in

the NTS test held on 13.11.2016, in which he obtained 68% marks---As

other candidates from the same batch were regularized by February

2017, the respondent sought similar treatment---Following a re-

interview on 27.08.2021, he was reappointed through a fresh

engagement letter dated 01.09.2021, after which he sought pay

protection and regularization from his earlier service period---Upon

WAPDA s inaction, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service

Tribunal, which allowed his claim by directing that his regularization

and seniority be reckoned from February 2017---The

department/WAPDA, subsequently, challenge Tribunal s decision

before the Supreme Court---Held: Federal Government s recruitment

policy dated 22.10.2014 was issued to prevent open- ended processes---

Rule XIII of the said policy required recruitment to be finalized within

sixty (60) days of the advertisement, later extended to ninety (90) days

by amendment dated 21.09.2017---In the present case, the respondent

was regularized nearly five years after the advertisement, well beyond

the prescribed timeline---The respondent continuously officiated on a

sanctioned grade-17 post from 02.12.2013 without break---If the post

was permanent throughout, then serial No.7(5) Chapter 4 of the

Estacode supported treating him against that permanent vacancy from

his initial engagement, subject to completion of the notified

competitive process---At the very least, once he cleared the NTS test,

the petitioner could not lawfully push effect to 2021---The

aforementioned provision explicitly cut off delay beyond the later of

those two dates---Result sheets of medical staff from the same batch

indicated that candidates even below 80% marks were regularized in

February 2017---Regularizing similarly placed candidates from the

same NTS batch within three (3) months of the test while withholding

the respondent s regularization for five years constituted

discrimination in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution---Impugned

judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was well-reasoned---No

substantial question of law of public importance within the ambit of

Article 212(3) of the Constitution was raised---Leave to appeal was

refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Sami Ullah Ghauri, Research Officer, Islamabad v.

Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan 2002 SCMR

698 rel.

Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by

Muhammad Muaaz (Director HR WAPDA) for Petitioners. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th September, 2025.

JUDGMENT

SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---Through this petition, the

Petitioner-department assails the judgment dated 26.03.2024 passed by

the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp Office, Peshawar [ the Tribunal ]

whereby the office order dated 11.10.2022 [ Regularization Order ]

issued by the competent authority was modified to the extent of

altering the date of regularization of the Respondent s service from

08.09.2021 to February 2017. The impugned judgment also granted pay

protection to the Respondent and clarified that seniority would be

determined from February 2017.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent was engaged by the

Petitioner as Junior Engineer (Electrical), BPS-17, vide letter dated

21.11.2013 [ First Engagement Letter ]. The Respondent was appointed

on ad-hoc basis through a walk-in-interview. The First Engagement

Letter excluded pension, gratuity, provident fund and seniority, and

provided that any later placement in the regular cadre would depend

on a competitive examination process. According to the learned

counsel for the parties, on 07.08.2016, the Petitioner advertised the

post of Junior Engineer (Power) and by way of departmental

intimation dated 12.08.2016, the Respondent was advised to appear in

the test conducted by National Testing Service [ NTS test ] which was to

be held on 13.11.2016. The Respondent appeared in the NTS test and

secured 68% marks as per the result dated 22.11.2016.

3. On 25.11.2016, the Respondent filed a representation seeking

regularization on the ground that the medical staff who appeared in

the same NTS batch had been regularized by February 2017. Such

representation remained unheard, and therefore, the Respondent filed

a writ petition before the Lahore High Court in February 2017, which

was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2021 on the basis of an

undertaking given by Petitioner s counsel that the Respondent would

also be considered for regularization along with other candidates. The

operative part of such order is reproduced herein:

. The counsel for the Respondent-WAPDA has submitted minutes of

the meeting of the Authority dated 16.08.2016 which have been

placed on record. According to these minutes, applications for

regular appointment of those persons who are working on

temporary basis and who have cleared the written tests have

been undertaken to be considered by way of interviews. The

petitioner falls within the sweep of this decision. The counsel for

the respondent submits that the petitioner shall also be

considered in the light of this decision. The counsel for the

petitioner accepts this offer made and submits that for the

present this petition has fructified . Pursuant to the above, the Respondent was re-interviewed on

27.08.2021 and the Petitioner issued another engagement letter dated

01.09.2021 [ Second Engagement Letter ] to the Respondent. The

Respondent vide letter dated 02.12.2021 to the General Manager

(Hydel), WAPDA, sought pay protection and upon receiving no

reasoned response, the Respondent submitted a representation dated

26.10.2022 to the Petitioner for pay protection and regularization from

his initial appointment in 2013. It remained unheard and then the

Respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 27.01.2023 seeking

pay protection and regularization w.e.f. November 2013 (date of initial

appointment), or alternatively w.e.f. 25.11.2016 (when regularization

conditions stood fulfilled) or February 2017 (i.e. 90 days after the NTS

result dated 22.11.2016). The Tribunal through the impugned judgment

allowed the appeal, holding that seniority accrue from February 2017,

and that pension/gratuity shall be governed by the applicable rules

upon completion of twenty-five (25) years of qualifying service.

4. Learned ASC for the Petitioner submits that the Tribunal erred in

law by antedating regularization and the First Engagement Letter

issued to the Respondent explicitly excluded pension, gratuity,

provident fund and seniority; that the acceptance of the First

Engagement Letter in itself stops the Respondent to ask for gratuity for

the period of his ad-hoc service. The learned counsel places reliance

on Serial No. 90, Chapter 3 of the Estacode and also argues that his

substantive appointment through the Second Engagement Letter did

not flow from ad-hoc service rather arose from the fresh competitive

process. The learned ASC states that several junior engineers were

recruited in the same manner and none has sought what the

Respondent claimed. The learned ASC further submits that only

candidates who secured more than 80% marks in NTS test were called

for interview, while the Respondent secured 68% marks.

5. Conversely, learned ASC for the respondent has opposed the

contentions advanced by the learned ASC for the Petitioner.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on the record with their able assistance.

7. It is pertinent to highlight that the Federal Government s

recruitment policy dated 22.10.2014 was issued to prevent open-ended

processes. Rule XIII of the aforementioned policy requires recruitment

to be finalized within sixty (60) days of the advertisement, later

extended to ninety (90) days by amendment dated 21.09.2017. In the

instant case, the Respondent was regularized nearly five years after

the advertisement, well beyond the prescribed timeline. Furthermore,

the Respondent has relied upon Serial No. 7(5), Chapter 4 of the

Estacode which reads as follows:

(5) Confirmation of a civil servant in a service or post shall take

effect from the date of occurrence of permanent vacancy in that

service or post or from the date of continuous officiation, in

such service or post, whichever is later . In the present case, the Respondent continuously officiated on a

sanctioned Grade-17 post from 02.12.2013 without break. If the post

was permanent throughout, this rule supports treating him against

that permanent vacancy from his initial engagement, subject to

completion of the notified competitive process. At the very least, once

he cleared the NTS test, the Petitioner could not lawfully push effect to

2021. The aforementioned provision explicitly cuts off delay beyond

the later of those two dates.

8. Furthermore, no notified rule requiring 80% marks to qualify for

interview has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner. Para 7 of the memo of Petition itself states that the

candidates having upto 80 marks in written test were called for

interview against relevant quota. The phrase upto 80 marks negates

the Petitioner s stance that only those scoring above 80 marks were

eligible for interview. In any event, the result sheets of medical staff

from the same batch indicate that candidates even below 80% were

regularized in February 2017. Regularizing similarly placed candidates

from the same NTS batch within three (3) months of the test while

withholding the Respondent s regularization for five (5) years

constitutes discrimination in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution.

9. While arguing, the Petitioner relied upon the following specific

portion of Serial No. 90, Chapter 3 of the Estacode:

.ad-hoc service does not reckon for purposes of seniority when the

ad-hoc appointment is later on converted to regular

appointment . .

The Petitioner s reliance of the aforementioned provision is correct

and is also affirmed in the case titled as Muhammad Sami Ullah

Ghauri, Research Officer, Islamabad v. Secretary, Establishment

Division, Government of Pakistan

1. The relevant portion of the

judgment is reproduced herein below:

. 6. In view of above principle if the case of respondent is adjudged

no other conclusion can be formed except that respondent

Mushtaq Ahmad after his selection though worked against ad

hoc post but his length of service for determining seniority will

be counted from the date of recommendation made in his favour

by the Federal Public Service Commission in BPS-17 and

petitioner who was admittedly promoted after respondent's

recruitment would be junior to him in rank .

The learned ASC for the Petitioner stated the rule correctly but

failed to show how the Tribunal erred in applying the same. In our

view, the impugned judgment kept seniority from February 2017

whereas denied credit for the ad hoc period. Hence, the Tribunal

properly applied the Estacode and Muhammad Sami Ullah Ghauri

(supra).

10. For what has been stated above, we find the impugned judgment

to be well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law and no illegality or perversity has been noticed therein. No substantial

question of law of public importance within the ambit of Article 212(3)

of the Constitution has been raised by the Petitioner s counsel

warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant Petition

is dismissed and Leave to Appeal is refused.

UN/M-97/SC Petition dismissed.