CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITY (DHA), MULTAN Versus Syed SAFEER ABBAS KAZMI
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.---- Through the instant appeal, the appellants have called into question the vires of the consolidated judgment dated 07.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the respondents' constitutional petition, challenging the vires of the order dated 25.03.2025, which had rejected their representation seeking to be declared as permanent workmen, was allowed in the following terms:‑
"12. For the foregoing reasons all these petitions are allowed and impugned orders dated 5th December, 2024 and 25th March, 2025 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are set aside, being illegal and unlawful with the direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners in terms of Policy, as a consequence any further steps taken by the respondents in pursuance to the impugned orders shall also stand nullified with no order as to costs."
2. Learned Law Officer, appearing on behalf of appellants, submits that the observations made in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment are misplaced and self-contradictory. He argues that the contract employees regularized through Office Order dated 31.05.2022 were regularized under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, strictly against sanctioned posts, not non-sanctioned ones. Thus, no question of discrimination arises. He points out that Section 3(2) of the 2018 Act expressly provides that regularization must occur against sanctioned posts. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another v. Zaka Ullah and others (C.P. No.1114-L of 2022 , judgment dated 28.11.2024), where it was held, particularly in paragraph 11, that the existence of a sanctioned post, along with approval from the Finance Department under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, is a mandatory precondition for regularization. It was also emphasized that a temporary employee is bound by the terms of his appointment letter. The Law Officer contends that although the learned Single Judge acknowledges the necessity of sanctioned posts, the respondents admittedly held non-sanctioned posts, and the impugned judgment does not record any finding to the contrary. He further relies on Faraz Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (2022 PLC 198) and Mohsin Raza Gondal and others v. Sardar Mahmood and others (2025 SCMR 104) , which reiterate that regularization without sanctioned posts is impermissible. It is also argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable, as the respondents claimed the status of "workmen" under labour laws. As held in Syed Arshad Ali and others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. and others (2008 SCMR 314) and Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) , the High Court lacks jurisdiction in such matters where an alternate remedy under special law exists. This principle is further affirmed in Sana Jamali v. Mujeeb Qamar and another (2023 SCMR 316) and Mian Azam Waheed and 2 others v. The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi (2023 SCMR 1247) , which hold that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked where a special forum is available under a special statute. Contrarily, learned counsel for respondents defends the impugned judgment by contending that appellants have failed to pinpoint any illegality or legal infirmity therein, thus, no interference is warranted.
3. It is not disputed that the respondents had been working as Sanitary Patrols (contingent paid staff) with the District Health Authority, Multan, since 2015-2016 and had continuously rendered services up to December 2024. Their work was primarily focused on the prevention and control of epidemics, especially dengue, a recurring public health emergency. The record further reveals that the Government of Punjab, through the Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, itself permitted the hiring of such staff for the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23, which directly contradicts the later allegation of unauthorized hiring.
4. The learned Single Judge, after an exhaustive appraisal of the factual matrix and legal framework, rightly concluded that the respondents fulfilled the criteria of "permanent workmen" as defined in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 ( the Ordinance of 1968 ), and under Clause 4 of the Policy dated 29.01.2021. It was further held that the petitioners had served for more than nine months on posts of a permanent nature and were therefore entitled to protection under the Policy.
Apart from the period served on a particular post, if the nature of work for which a person is employed, is of a permanent nature, then the employee may become permanent upon expiry of the period of nine months mentioned in terms of clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Ordinance of 1968, provided that he is covered by the definition of the term "worker" given in Section 2(i) thereof. But if the work is not of permanent nature and is not likely to last for more than nine months, then he is not covered by the above provision. In this case, the nature of the respondents' duties is inherently permanent, as their work pertains to the ongoing and recurring public health function of epidemic prevention and vector control, particularly in relation to dengue. The continuous engagement of the respondents from 2015-2016 up to December 2024, without interruption, reflects the enduring need for their services. Moreover, the repeated authorization of their hiring by the Government of Punjab across multiple financial years further reinforces the institutional recognition of the permanent character of these posts. It is therefore evident that the respondents were performing duties of a permanent nature against regular and ongoing public health assignments. Reliance is placed upon Town Administration and another v. Mohammad Khalid and others (2024 SCMR 1852) .
5. The Policy in question was issued pursuant to Cabinet approval under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, and has statutory backing. When a policy exists and a class of employees is found eligible thereunder, the Government is not permitted to arbitrarily deny the benefit of such policy.
6. Needless to say, it is settled law that constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked where the action of the authority is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 4, 9 and 25 of the Constitution. In this case, the respondents were similarly placed with other Sanitary Patrols who had already been regularized vide office order dated 31.05.2022, yet were denied equal treatment without any rational basis. Such invidious discrimination offends the constitutional guarantee of quality before the law. The learned Single Bench, while relying won various esteemed judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rightly observed that long-term service on posts of permanent nature creates a legitimate expectation of regularization, especially when supported by policy or administrative instructions.
7. We also find no substance in the appellants' argument that respondents were hired against non-sanctioned posts. The record reflects that the services were requisitioned and utilized by the District Health Authority, Multan, with the knowledge and approval of the competent department. If any irregularity existed in the manner of appointment, the same cannot be attributed to the respondents, who were continuously engaged, paid, and assigned duties for almost a decade. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, backed by long-standing service and applicable policy, comes into full operation in such circumstances. Even otherwise, this argument was neither specifically raised before learned Single Judge, nor substantiated before us through any material.
8. In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in this Intra-Court Appeal. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Bench is well-reasoned, legally sound, and calls for no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
MQ/C-12/L Appeal dismissed.