MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE vs SHER BAHADUR — 2026 PLC(CS) 831 SUPREME-COURT

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

MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE VS SHER BAHADUR. 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.

MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE vs SHER BAHADUR — 2026 PLC(CS) 831 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC