2025 PLC(CS) 93 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ARIF VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad arts. 189 & 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Judgment of Supreme Court---applicability---Contractual appointments---Individual claim---Determination---Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed regularization in respondent / company---after decision of Supreme Court in the matter, petitioners sought determination of their individual claims by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Validity---Petitioners had already been non-suited by High Court earlier on account of maintainability---Matter was remanded by Supreme Court and High Court was also invited to express its view on the issue of entitlement---Separate pleas of each of the three thousand three hundred and fifty nine claimants were not individually appraised and jurisdiction had been declined---Full Bench of High Court declined to render findings in respect of individual entitlement as the same was not merited and petitioners could approach appropriate forum in accordance with law---High Court was bound by an authority illumined by Supreme Court, in application of enunciation of principles of law enshrined in its judgment---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. arts. 9, 25 & 199---Constitutional petition---Object, purpose and scope---Contractual appointments---Regularization---Fundamental right, violation of---Proof---Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed for regularization in respondent / company---Validity---For issuing a writ under art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, a petitioner has to establish that he is guaranteed a fundamental or legal right---Object of art. 199 of the Constitution is enforcement of a legal right and not establishment of a legal right---In absence of a specific provision in contract or law providing for regularization, contract employees do not have vested right for regular appointment solely due to long and satisfactory contractual service---While exercising jurisdiction under art. 199 of the Constitution, High Court cannot extend scope of a contract or alter terms and conditions of employment in favour of an employee---There was no statute or Government policy applicable to respondent / company requiring or enabling it to regularize contract employees and no writ could be issued to respondent / company to do so under art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution---Refusal of respondent / company to regularize petitioners did not infringe their fundamental rights in art. 9 or 25 of the Constitution and did not entitle them to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. art. 199(5)---Constitutional petition---Term "person"---Scope---Per art. 199(5) of the Constitution, "person" includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of Federal Government or of a Provincial Government---Provision of art. 199(5) of the Constitution makes no distinction between a body corporate created by a statute by legal fiction and a body incorporated under Companies act, 2017---Even if it is the latter and is under control of Government and performs functions in connection with affairs of Federation, a Province or a local authority, such body is open to a writ. art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Contractual appointments---Regularization---Statutory provision, absence of---Effect---Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed regularization in respondent / company---Validity---Subject of regularization was not a part of terms and conditions of service---Question of maintainability of such claim did not turn on whether service rules of respondent / company were statutory or non-statutory so much as whether any statute or other instrument having force of law conferred such right so as to admit to its enforcement through a petition under art. 199 of the Constitution---From the stand point of art. 199 of the Constitution, subject of entitlement to regularization and question of maintainability of a petition brought on such subject were intertwined---In absence of any statute or other instrument having force of law requiring respondent / company to regularize service of petitioners, no entitlement had arisen so as to enable them to bring and maintain petitions under art. 199 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC