SUKKUR: While turning down a plea seeking a writ of mandamus for regularisation of service, the Sindh High Court ruled on Thursday that a contract employee has no vested right to be made permanent merely because of long contractual service.
A two-member bench at Sukkur, comprising Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry and Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber), held that without a statutory provision or an applicable government policy, no writ can be issued for regularisation in the matter in hand.
The bench decided Mst. Fahmeeda Imdad v. Province of Sindh & others (C.P. No. D-1788 of 2025) on the day of the hearing. Justice Chaudhry authored the two-page judgment, and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
At the outset, the judge noted in the judgment, “Mr. Qadeer Ahmed Shaikh, Advocate, holding brief for Mr. Sarfraz A. Akhund, counsel for the petitioner, requests for an adjournment as the latter is at Larkana. Similar adjournment was sought on the last date as well. Since this is a date-by-Court matter, we are not inclined to grant the adjournment.”
The petitioner serves as a Junior School Teacher at the Model School run under the aegis of Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur Mir’s. She was engaged on contract on 5 June 2013 at a monthly pay of Rs6,000, and her contract was extended periodically. She approached the court seeking a writ to regularise her service, and the University’s counsel opposed the petition.
The bench observed that the petitioner was admittedly engaged on a contract basis. Assuming the University is amenable to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, it said, it is settled law that in the absence of a statute or policy no writ can issue to regularise a contract employee under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The judgment relied on the Sindh High Court Full Bench decision in Muhammad Arif v. Federation of Pakistan (2025 PLC (C.S) 93), which examined the binding precedents of the Supreme Court. As reproduced in the order, the Full Bench reasoned that a writ under Article 199(1)(a) enforces an existing legal right and cannot establish one.
Absent a specific provision in the contract or a law providing for regularisation, contract employees have no vested right to a regular appointment solely because of long and satisfactory contractual service. In exercising jurisdiction under Article 199, the High Court cannot extend the scope of a contract or alter the terms and conditions of employment in favour of the employee. Without a statutory basis for regularisation, an employee has no fundamental or vested right to it.
The Full Bench had drawn on a long line of Supreme Court decisions, including Muzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 304), Owais Shams Durrani v. Vice-Chancellor Bacha Khan University (2020 SCMR 1041), Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Zeeshan Usmani (2021 SCMR 609) and Khushal Khan Khattak University v. Jabran Ali Khan (2021 SCMR 977).
Applying that reasoning, the bench found no statute or government policy applicable to the respondents that requires or enables them to regularise the petitioner. It therefore held that no writ could issue under Article 199(1)(a) and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
