Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3580
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains)
This judicial decision was delivered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains). The matter involves proceedings between Petitioner and Respondent, officially reported as 2026 LHC 3580. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains) DECISION DATE: 25-05-2026 TAGLINE: Consequently, the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the scope and ambit of Section 2(c) of the Act, 2018. The exclusion pertaining to "project employees" ceased to operate once the petitioners were adjusted and retained against duly sanctioned posts in BPS-01 to BPS-09, which had been created under the current budget through the Schedule of New Expenditure (SNE) pursuant to the approval accorded by the Ministry of Finance and the then Chief Minister, Punjab, vide order dated 23.12.2021. Thereafter, their contractual appointments were continuously extended from time to time by the Provincial Cabinet, being the competent authority, against sanctioned posts in BS-01 to BS-09. CASE DETAILS: Service 78377/25 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A-38. JUDGMENT SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Writ Petition No.78377 of 2025 Farhat Parveen Versus Government of the Punjab through Secretary Population Welfare Department, etc. J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing: 06.05.2026 Petitioners by: M/s Hafiz Muhammad Tariq Naseem, Muhammad Akmal Khan, Mehmood Ahmad Qazi and Muhammad Tariq Shamim, Advocates. Respondent-State by: Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Respondents- Department by: Mr. Khurram Abbas Wahga, Law Officer, with Muhammad Imran, DDA, Nabeel Christopher, ADA, Abubakar, Assistant Legal, Aftab Ahmad Awan, DPWO Sargodha.
MALIK JAVID IQBAL WAINS, J.: This judgment shall decide the instant writ petition along with connected writ petitions bearing Nos., 76039 of 2025, 72597 of 2025, Crl. Org. No.20768 of 2026 & 20796 of 2026, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. 2. Brief facts of the leading case i.e. W.P. No. 78377/2025, are that the petitioner w as appointed as Family Welfare Worker (BS -08) on contract basis under Project Management Unit for the Scheme titled ―Expansion of Family Welfare Centres and Introduction of Community Based Family Planning Workers ‖ (2014-18). It was asserted that vide letter dated 25.06.2021, Government of Punjab converted the post of the petitioner from development to non-development side, however the respondents -department did not regularize her service, resultantly, the petitioner along with others filed a writ petition No.3655/2022 before this Court, wherein direction was issued to respondents to look into their grievance , while treating the same as representation, and redress it strictly in accordance with law, after hearing W.P.No.78377 of 2025 2
the petitioner and all concerned wi thin a period of thirty days , vide order dated 24.01.2022. 3. In compliance of order dated 24.01.2022 passed by this Court, respondent No.3/Director General, Population Welfare Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2022, prompting the petitioner to file a W.P. No.21553/2022 before this Court. In the said writ petition, again direction was issued to respondents to treat the petition as representation and redress grievance of the peti tioner strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and all concerned, within a period of thirty days. It was averred that the order dated 07.03.2022 was not complied with by the respondents, resultantly one Muhammad Imtiaz Ahmed filed a c ontempt petition and respondents while appearing before this Court produced a copy of order dated 11.04.2023 whereby representation of the petitioner was rejected. 4. The petitioner further maintained that another W.P. No.31194/2023 was filed before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 28.03.2024, in terms that respondents were directed to refer/re -examine the cases of petitioners in line with the parameters laid down by this Court in the case titled “Rana Saifullah & others vs. Province of Punja b through Chief Secretary, Lahore & another and by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No.2187 -L/2023 titled “Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore, etc. vs. Zain Khalid, etc. ” It was further asserted that respondent s did not comply the order dated 28.03.2024, whereupon contempt petition bearing Crl. Org. No.79928 -W of 2024 was filed before this Court and during pendency of the same, impugned minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee dated 29.05.2024 were produ ced whereby claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected, hence contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2025, necessitating the petitioner to file this writ petition. 5. Further, in connected W.P. No.76039/2025, challenge has specifically been made to the order dated 28.12.2024 passed by the District Population Welfare Officer, whereby representation of the petitioners was declined. Likewise, in other connected W.P. No.72597/2025, besides the common W.P.No.78377 of 2025 3
grievance, the petitioners hav e additionally pleaded that after conversion of the project from development to non -development side, their right to regularization had accrued and prayed for implementation of order passed by this Court dated 28.03.2024 in W.P. No.32733 of 2023, titled “Ahmad Raza & others vs. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Population Welfare Department, Lahore & others . Further in both Crl. Org. petitions, the petitioners seeks implementation of order dated 03.03.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No.78377 of 2025 and 76039 of 2025 and to take action against respondents for violation thereof. 6. Report/para-wise comments were requisitioned from the respondents - department, which have been submitted. It is the contention of respondents that petitioners were appoi nted on contract basis under an ADP Scheme titled ―Expansion of Family Welfare Cente rs & Introduction to Community Based Family Planning Workers 2014 -2018” (extended up to 30.06.2021) by the Population Welfare Department, Punjab. This is their 4th round of litigation before th is Court , having previously filed Writ Petitions No.9077/2022, 32728/2023, and 79855/2024, all of which were disposed of with directions to consider their cases for regularization. It was contended that representations of the petitione rs were examined by the concerned Scrutiny Committees but were rejected on the ground that being project employees, they do not fall within the definition of ―contract employee‖ under Section 2(c) of the Act, 2018 (amended in 2019), which explicitly excludes persons appointed to a post in a project, programme, or project management unit and are not entitled for regularization. 7. The department further submitted in report that the petitioners have no vested right to seek regularization, as their offer of ap pointment clearly stated that contract appointment shall not confer any right of regular appointment. It was their contention that the Act, 2018 itself stands repealed w.e.f. 31.10.2025. The Provincial Cabinet in its 24th meeting held on 27.03.2025 approved extension of existing employees‘ contracts only up to 31.12.2025, with the explicit condition of no possibility of regularization . Thus, the contracts of the petitioners stood expired on 31.12.2025 and their salaries had already been paid accordingly. W.P.No.78377 of 2025 4
8. In view of this position, the department submits that the petitioners are neither entitled to regularization nor to extension of their contracts, and that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. However, as a benefit, the petitioners may participate in a fresh recruitment process when initiated, and shall be given age relaxation in the upper age limit as well as experience marks (up to a maximum of 10 marks) in terms of S&GAD‘s policy letter dated 06.06.2022. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. From a perusal of the impugned minutes of the Scrutiny Committee meeting dated 29.05.2024 and the impugned order dated 28.12.2024, it transpires that the respondents -department, while scrutinizing the cases of the petitioners under the Act, 2018 , declared the petitioners to be project employees and, consequently, held that they do not fall within the definition of a ―contract employee‖ as provided under Section 2(c) of the Act, 2018. 11. In the above backdrop, the foremost questions requiring determination by this Court are as follows: i) Whether the petitioners, who were initially appointed on a contractual basis under the Annual Development Programme (ADP) Scheme titled ―Expansion of Family Welfare Centers and Introduction to Community Based Family Planni ng Workers‖ , and whose services continued after the creation of 3,000 posts through SNE vide letter dated 03.03.2021 issued by the Finance Department, followed by the conversion of the project from the development side to the non -development side vide noti fication dated 25.06.2021, and whose contracts were thereafter extended against the newly created posts pursuant to the approval of the then Chief Minister dated 23.12.2021 up to 30.06.2022, and subsequently extended by the Provincial Cabinet being compete nt authority from 01.07.2022 to 31.03.2026 against sanctioned posts of BPS-1 to BPS -9, can still be treated as project employees , or whether they fall within the ambit of ―contract employee‖ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, 2018 (as amended in 201 9), thereby entitling them to regularization of their services under the law? (ii) Whether the action of the respondents in extending the benefit of regularization to other similarly situated employees of the same department while denying the same benefit to the petitioners amounts to discrimination and unequal treatment, and is therefore violative of Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973? 12. It is an admitted position on the record that the petitioners were appointed during the years 2014 and 2015 under the ADP Scheme W.P.No.78377 of 2025 5
titled ―Expansion of Family Welfare Centers and Introduction of Community Based Family Planning Workers (2014 -2018)‖ against various posts, including Family Welfare Assistants, F amily Welfare Workers, Helpers/Chowkidars and other allied positions. The appointments were made through a duly advertised and transparent recruitment process, and since their induction the petitioners have continuously discharged their duties without interruption. 13. The reco rd manifests that the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, vide Letter No. SO(H -I)5-157/2021-22 (SNE) dated 31.03.2021, sanctioned and created three thousand (3000) posts of different categories for the aforesaid scheme through the Schedule of New Expenditure (SNE), Budget Estimates 2021 -22. Subsequently, the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, through letter No.PWD/SO(B)/5 - 2/2014-IV-P-1914, dated 25.06.2021, converted the said ADP Scheme from the development side to the non -development s ide with effect from the financial year 2021-22. Consequent upon such conversion, the tenure of the employees working under the scheme, including the petitioners, was extended for a further period of six months up to 31.12.2021 against the non- development budget, in accordance with the policy contained in the S&GAD (Regulations/O&M Wing) letter dated 23.07.2014 . For facility of reference, the relevant letter is reproduced hereunder: -
14. Subsequently, on 23.12.2021, the matter was placed before the then Chief Minister, Punjab, seeking approval for the extension of the contractual W.P.No.78377 of 2025 6
engagement of the existing staff working against sanctioned posts created under the current budget. The then Chief Minister, Punjab, while relaxing the policy guidelines containe d in the S&GAD (Regulations/O&M Wing) letter dated 23.07.2014, as previously approved for filling vacant posts upon their conversion from the development side to the non -development side, accorded approval for the extension of the contract period of the ex isting staff serving against the posts created under the current budget for ―Expansion of Family Welfare Centres and Introduction of Community Based Family Planning Workers 2014-2021 for a period of six months, from 01.01.2022, to 30.06.2022 vide order No. PWD/SO(B)/5-2/2014-IV-P, dated 23.12.2021. A copy of said order is reproduced below for ready reference: -
15. The record thus reflects that, at the time of extension granted by the then Chief Minister, Punjab, the petitioners‘ contractual appointments were no longer treated as being against the ADP Scheme; rather, they were continued against posts created under the current budget , and the said continuation was approved through relaxation of the policy guidelines contained in the S&GAD (Regulations/O&M Wing) letter dated 23.07.2014. Consequently, it is evident that the petitioners contractual engagements stood shifted from the ADP Scheme to the posts created under the current budget with the approval of the competent authority the then Chief Minister, Punjab. 16. Furthermore, vide Order No. PWD/SO(B) -5-2/2014-V, dated 21.11.2022 and Order No. PWD/SO(B) -5-2/2014-V dated 23.08.2023, the W.P.No.78377 of 2025 7
Secretary, Population Welfare Department, Lahore, pursuant to the approval accorded by the Provincial Cabinet, extended th e contractual engagements of the staff working against sanctioned posts of BS-01 to BS -09. The said extensions were granted for the periods from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023 and from 01.07.2023 to 31.12.2023, respectively. Copies of the aforesaid orders issued by the Population Welfare Department are reproduced below for ready reference: -
W.P.No.78377 of 2025 8
17. Likewise, the contractual engagements of the petitioners were further extended for the period from 01.01.2024 to 30.06.2024 vide Order No. PWD/SO(B)-5/2014-VI, dated 19.02.2024. The record reflects that prior approval of the Caretaker Provincial Cabinet was duly obtained for the said extension. Pursuant thereto, the Population Welfare Department extended the contractual engagements of staff working against sanctioned posts of BS-01 to BS -09 for the aforesaid period, i.e., from 01.01.2024 to 30.06.2024. A copy of the said order is affixed below for ready reference: -
18. Further, contract period of employees/petitioner s was extended after approval of Provincial Cabine t in its 17 th meeting held on 08.10.2024, from 01.07.2024 to 31.12.2024 , vide order No.PWD/SO(B&D)-5/2014-VI, dated 18.10.2024. Pursuant thereto, the department extended contractual period of staff working against sanctioned posts of BS-01 to BS -09 for the aforesaid period. The order is reproduced below: -
W.P.No.78377 of 2025 9
19. The Provincial Cabinet further approved extension of contractual engagements of petitioners for a period of one year, from 01.01.2025 to 31.12.2025. Pursuant to said approval, the Population Welfare Department extended contractual engagements of staff working against sanctioned posts of BS-01 to BS-09 for aforesaid period. Consequently, Secretary, Health and Population Department , issued Order No.H&PD/SO(B&D)5 -2/2014-VI(P), dated 18.04.2025, giving e ffect to the approval of the Provincial Cabinet. Copy of the said order is given below: -
20. Finally, the Provincial Cabinet accorded approval for the extension of the contractual engagements of the employees for the period from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.202 6 vide order No.SO(B&A)5 -2/2014-VI, dated 13.04.2026 issued by the Secretary Health & Population Department. The record further reflects that the petitioners have remained in continuous service of the respondent s-department for more than a decade, and their contract period was extended from time to time by the competent authorit y without any material interruption. The aforementioned successive approvals, initially granted by the then Chief Minister, Punjab, vide order dated 23.12.2021, while relaxing polic y guidelines dated 23.07.2014, and thereafter by the Provincial Cabinet being competent authority from time to time till 13.04.2026, are of considerable significance. 21. The Scrutiny Committee constituted at district level concluded , as recorded in the o rder dated 28.12.2024, which has been impugned through W.P.No.78377 of 2025 10
this petition, that the petitioners were appointed to the project posts and therefore fall outside the definition of ―contract employee‖ as envisaged in Section 2(c) of the Act, 2018 (amended in 2019), which explicitly excludes persons appointed to a post in a project, programme, or project management unit. This Court is unable to sustain the said finding. 22. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid approvals leaves no room for doubt that, after the appro val dated 23.12.2021, the petitioners were no longer being retained as employees of a development project or ADP scheme. Rather, their contractual engagements stood continued against sanctioned posts created under the current budget, a position that was consistently recognized and reaffirmed through subsequent approvals accorded by the Provincial Cabinet. Consequently, the respondents cannot, at this stage, legitimately treat the petitioners as project employees when the competent authorit y itself approved their continuation against sanctioned posts in BS-01 to BS-09. 23. Before proceeding further, it is observed that the judgments relied upon by the respondents, titled Qadeer Ali etc. vs. Province of Punjab etc. (2024 PLC (C.S.) 1167) , rendered by a learned Single Bench and subsequently upheld by a learned Division Bench of this Court reported as PLJ 2025 Lahore 995 (DB) , are not applicable to the controversy involved in the present case. 24. In the aforesaid cases, the issue before the Court was limited to determining whether employees appointed under a project acquired a vested right to regularization solely on the ground that the project had been converted from the development side to the non -development side. The factual backdrop of the present case is, however, materially distinguishable. The record reveals that both prior to and subsequent to the conversion of the project from the development side to the non -development side, 3,000 posts were created through the Schedule of New Expenditure (SNE) under t he current budget with the approval of the Ministry of Finance. Thereafter, the contracts of the petitioners were extended against sanctioned posts in BPS -1 to BPS -9 with the approval of the then Chief Minister vide order dated 23.12.2021 for a period of s ix months up to 30.06.2022. Subsequently, the Provincial Cabinet, being the competent authority, accorded successive W.P.No.78377 of 2025 11
approvals for the continuation and extension of the petitioners‘ contractual appointments against sanctioned posts in BPS -1 to BPS -9 from 0 1.07.2022 up to 13.04.2026.In these circumstances, the factual foundation of the present case is substantially different from that involved in Qadeer Ali (supra). Accordingly, the aforesaid judgments are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not govern t he determination of the controversy presently before this Court. 25. The contention advanced by the learned L egal Advisor for the respondents-department that the Act, 2018 stands repealed with effect from 31.10.2025 and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, is devoid of legal substance and does not carry any force in the eyes of law. The legal effect of the repeal of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 has already been examined by a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case titled “Mohsin Abbas v s. Secretary Communication” (2026 LHC 1419). While adjudicating upon the consequences of such repeal, the learned Single Bench laid down the relevant legal principles, which were subsequently affirmed by a learned Division Bench o f this Court. The ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the present case, though only to the limited extent of determining the legal effect and consequences arising from the repeal of the Act, 2018. Accordingly, the observations made therein shall be considered for resolving the issue relating to the impact of the repeal of the said enactment on the rights and claims asserted by the petitioners in the instant matter. Relevant paragraphs of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced as under: - 14. Adverting to the core legal question formulated hereinabove regarding the effect of the Repealing Act, it would be appropriate to understand the object and scope of a repealing enactment. Repealing a law is the legislative act of officially re voking, cancelling, or abolishing an existing statute, rendering it no longer in force. This process, inter alia, aims at removing obsolete laws, and adapting to changing socioeconomic conditions. The effects of a repeal are largely determined by examining as to whether the new legislation includes savings clause to protect existing rights and proceedings. To ensure legal continuity, repealing legislation uses saving clause/provision, which dictates that, unless otherwise stated, a repeal does not affect th e previous operation of the law, or any rights, liabilities, and penalties accrued, nor does it affect ongoing legal proceedings to prevent the immediate, disruptive destruction of accrued rights and pending cases. 15. Effect of repeal of an enactment is dealt with by Article 264 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (― the W.P.No.78377 of 2025 12
Constitution‖) that reads as under: “264. Effect of repeal of laws. Where a law is repealed, or is deemed to have been repealed, by, under, or by virtue of the Constitution, the repeal shall not, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; (b) affect the previous operation of the law or anything duly done or suffered under the law; (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the law; (Emphasis supplied) The effect of repeal of a statute is also envisaged under Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 (―the Act 1956‖), which reads as under:
“4. Effect of Repeal.– (1) Where this Act or any other Punjab Act repeals any enactment then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not– (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege , obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any p enalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the Repealing Act had not been passed. (2) The provisions of sub -section (1) shall apply on the expiry or withdrawal of any Ordinance promulgated by the Governor as if it had been repealed by the Punjab Act.‖ (Emphasis supplied) Section 2(2) of the Repealing Act also contains a saving clause that reads as under: ―2. Repeal and Saving.—(1)….. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 (XV of 2018) under sub-Section (1), anything done or action taken under any provision of the repealed Act, shall continue to have effect as if the said Act has not been repealed.‖ W.P.No.78377 of 2025 13
(Emphasis supplied) 16. What is required to be determined is the scope of words ― anything done or action taken” and ―shall continue to have effect as if the said Act has not been repealed ” used in Section 2(2) of the Repeali ng Act. This provision of the Repealing Act envisages a legislative fiction. It contemplates that any act done or action taken under the Regularization Act shall continue to have effect as if the Regularization Act has not been repealed. The expression ‗ anything done or action taken‘ are to be interpreted keeping in sight the fact that the legislature in its wisdom conferred an entitlement/eligibility to those contractual employees who completed three years‘ continuous service subject to certain conditions as examined hereinabove i.e., existence of vacancy etc., and nothing else can be an impediment to nonsuit such employees let alone inaction on part of the administrative department concerned, to process/submit the case of such employees to the appointing a uthority for regularization. The Supreme Court of Pakistan 16 has explained that Article 264 of the Constitution expressly saves ― any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy ‖ in respect of an…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.