EJAZ AKBAR KASI Versus MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

ORDER

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J .---In Constitutional Petitions Nos. 42, 48, 52 and 62 petitioners are serving PTV in different positions" on contract basis. There are employees amongst them who by now had successfully completed period of more than ten years. Essentially at the time of entering into contract service they appeared before the Examination Board and after establishing their qualification were inducted into service and without any disturbance, interference or break they are performing duties in Group 4, 5 and 6. Their academic qualifications or experience to continue in the employment is not disputed. It is, however, contended that they have been deprived of the status of a permanent employee as a result whereof job security is not available to them, although, many of them have spent their prime time of life in the Corporation and by now would be over-age for joining any other Organization or Government department. The above petitions have been brought in terms of Article 184(3) of the Constitution contending therein that the Organization be directed to protect their period of service as they served the Organization for the last more than ten years with performance more than satisfactory, therefore, their case is clearly covered under Article 9 of the Constitution.

2. Notices were issued to the respondents, who are now being represented by their counsel. During hearing it was also pointed out that some of the resourceful persons whose names have been mentioned as Messrs Behzad-ut Tayyub, Kashif, Akbar and others joined Corporation after petitioners appointment and despite the fact that they are junior to the petitioners, their services have been regularized. Prima facie, it clearly indicates that the Article 25 of the Constitution is violated.

3. There is no doubt that policy in respect of such employees for their regularization is to be framed by the respondent PTV but at the same time it is to be borne in mind that there should not be any discrimination and such like employees who are on contract basis for a period of more than 10 years etc. deserve to be considered for regularization as they are working against the existing sanctioned vacancy for which budgetary allocation are also made annually out of which they are being paid regularly. In the comments filed by PTV an admission was made to the following effect:

"However, the PTV has taken up the case of the contractual employees working in PTV Group-4 with the Government for their regularization through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting."

Similarly on 22nd October, 2010 learned counsel for PTV stated that the Management principally agreed to regularize the petitioners as well as the employees of some other groups. His admission on behalf of Corporation was duly recorded in the order. Leaned counsel for Corporation, however, today states that advice of Establishment Division was solicited but they have left it for the Board of Directors of PTV being an autonomous corporation. According to him the Board in its meeting dated 19-11-2009 had resolved that as the Organization .is running its business on competition basis, therefore, jobs are performance based as such declined to regularize them. On the other hand it has been informed that the employees of the Group 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 have been regularized leaving the employees of Group 4, 5 and 6. This fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the PTV. Thus in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Board of Directors may have not declined the petitioners' regularization, however it is a fact that regularization of contract employees, if at all is to be made is to depend upon the performance. The petitioners who have appeared in person state that they have qualified the test and their performance as well is up to mark which is evident that for the last more than ten years they have been allowed to continue work against the vacancies which they are holding without any interference and there is, now, no question of performance at all as they have already shown their performance.

4. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to agree to the reasons which prevailed upon the Board in not regularizing the Group 4, 5 and 6 when at the same time the employees of other Groups as noted hereinabove were regularized beside other individual persons whose names have also been mentioned hereinbefore. This Court has laid down a criteria in respect of such employees who have somehow identical contentions in the case of Ikram Bari and others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another (2005 SCMR 100). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered by the Board of Directors for the reasons noted hereinabove as they cannot be discriminated without any cogent reason by violating the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution and at the same time after having spent a considerable period of their lives in the Organization performing duties on contract basis. It is also the duty of the Organization to protect their fundamental rights enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution.

5. Thus for the forgoing reasons Petitions Nos. 42, 40 and 62 are accepted and the cases are sent to the PTV management for considering their cases for the purpose of regularization or otherwise in view of the observations made hereinbefore.

6. As far as Petition No. 48 is concerned, this case is different from above petitions because they were regularly appointed on probation for a period of two years from 20-2-2006, whereafter their probation period has not been extended and the letters of permanent employment have not been issued in their favour. Learning counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has stated that non-issuance of such letter on expiry of probation clearly indicates that they have completed the probation period without any stain on their performance and now they are in the employment of PTV. Be that as it may if it is the stand of the Corporation, they are directed to issue the letters of permanent employees to those employees who have successfully completed their probationary period. As such this petition is disposed of accordingly.

M.A.K./E-3/SC Order accordingly.