ALLAH YAR KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH JOINT
The petitioner, a Civil Supplies Inspector, challenged the termination of his employment by the Government of Pakistan, which was effected upon 15 days' notice. Having failed in the High Court, he sought Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the termination of the petitioner's services, based on an undertaking regarding notice periods, violated constitutional protections afforded to civil servants. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the petitioner held a temporary post within a temporary department and had explicitly provided an undertaking allowing for termination upon 15 days' notice. The Court rejected the argument that the undertaking was invalid because it was signed after the initial appointment, holding that it effectively became a term of the employment contract. Consequently, the Court ruled that the termination did not attract constitutional protections, as the petitioner was bound by the agreed-upon terms. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed, affirming that contractual terms regarding notice periods in temporary government service are binding.
- Can an undertaking regarding the termination of service, signed after the initial appointment, be considered a valid term of employment?
- Does the termination of a temporary government employee, pursuant to an agreed-upon notice period, attract constitutional protections?
- Is a finding by the High Court regarding the existence of a signed undertaking binding in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal?
1. S. - A. RAHMAN, J.-Allah Yar Khan, the petitioner, was employed as a Civil Supplies Inspector, and posted in Mirpur District, by the Government of Pakistan. His services were terminated in 1958 by an order of Government, by which he was given 15 days' notice to quit. He challenged this order as un- Constitutional before the High Court, but failed. He now seeks Special Leave to Appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Anwar Raja in support of the petition. The High Court has found that the petitioner occupied a temporary post in so far as the whole department in which he served, was a temporary one, and that he had given an undertaking to the Department to the effect that the service could be terminated by either side, on giving 15 days notice. Mr. Muhammad Anwar contends that no such undertaking had been given by the petitioner. This contention cannot be acceded to. The learned Judges .Have observed in the course of their order that the Government had produced before them a copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner in the sense mentioned above. Mr. Muhammad Anwar then adopted the alternative petition, that this undertaking was given long after the service utile petitioner started, and could not have been of any effect on his rights. It seems to us that though given sometime after he had been appointed, it constituted a term of the appointment itself. As the context of the undertaking itself shows, the termination of the petitioner's service did not attract the protective provisions of the Constitution, and to ground appears for Special Leave to Appeal.
3. The petition is dismissed.