ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Monday declared that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa govt cannot adopt cherry picking policy to regularise employees of certain projects while terminating the services of other similarly placed employees. A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali after hearing arguments of all the counsels and the Additional Advocate General KPK had reserved the judgment on February 24th, 2016.

The controversy in these cases revolves around whether the respondents, aggrieved employees of various projects, are governed by the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularisation of Services) Act, 2009.

The Section 3 of the Act: “Regularisation of Services of certain employees” all employees including recommendees of the High Court appointed on contract or ad hoc basis and holding that post on December 31st, 2008, or till the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis having the same qualification and experience.” The court observed that Section 3 of the Act clearly provides for regularisation of the employees appointed either on contract basis or ad hoc basis and were holding contract appointments on December 31st, 2008 or till the commencement of this Act.

The judgment authored by Justice Amir Hani Muslim noted that the respondents were appointed on one-year contract basis, which was extended from time to time and were holding their respective posts on the cut-off date provided in Section 3 (December 31, 2008).

The court said it is also an admitted fact that the respondents were appointed on contract basis on project posts but the projects were funded by the KPK govt by allocating regular provincial budget prior to the promulgation of the Act.

“Almost all the projects were brought under the regular Provincial Budget Schemes by the KPK govt and summaries were approved by the KPK Chief Minister for operating the projects on permanent basis,” the judgment said.

The “On Farm Water Management Project” was brought on the regular side in 2006 and the project was declared as an attached department of the Food, Agriculture, Livestock and Co-operative Department. Likewise, other projects were also brought under the regular Provincial Budget Scheme. Therefore, services of the respondents would not be affected by the language of Section 2(aa) and (b) of the Act, which could only be attracted if the projects were abolished on the completion of their prescribed tenure, the court said. It noted that the projects initially were introduced for a specified time but afterward transferred on permanent basis by attaching them with provincial govt departments. The employees of the same project were adjusted against the posts created by the provincial government in this behalf.

The court said that the record further reveals that the respondents were appointed on contract basis and were in employment/service for several years and projects for which they were appointed have also been taken on the regular budget of the provincial government, therefore, their status as project employees has ended once their services were transferred to the different attached govt departments, in terms of Section 3 of the Act.