Lt.-Col (Retd.) AAMIR RAUF vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary

' RIAZ AHMED KHAN, J.--- This order is directed to dispose of Writ Petition No,56 of 2011.

2. Facts constituting the background of the present petition are that petitioner Amir. Rauf retired Lt. Col, joined. National Center for Physics, Islamabad, which is an autonomous body, however, funded by the Government of Pakistan. The terms of appointment were given in the appointment letter dated 25-3-2009, which included that duration of contract would be up to the age of superannuation, if otherwise deemed proper by the competent authority. It was also provided in the appointment letter that the appointment during the period of contract shall be liable to termination on thirty days notice on either side or payment of one month's pay in lieu thereof, as admissible on the day preceding the date of termination of contract without assigning any reason.

In case petitioner wish as to leave the service of the NCP at anytime, he will have to resign in writing and will continue to serve in the NCP until his resignation is accepted in accordance with NCA regulations.

3. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter No,NCP/HR/EST/228- 10/Termittation/16/116/1997 dated 14-12-2010. The termination letter provided that the services of the petitioner are no more required. To the respondents/NCP.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the termination order dated 14-12-2010 be declared illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and accordingly be set aside. Comments of the respondents were called and notice was also issued to the respondents.

5. Today learned counsel for the parties preferred to argue the case.

6. I have perused the record and have also heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner had un-blemished career; he had proved himself up to the satisfaction of the superiors and had introduced many changes in his department. Learned counsel further contended that although no stigma has been levelled against the petitioner in the termination order, yet termination by itself is a stigma on the career of the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside, as no inquiry was conducted against the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 4, submitted that the petitioner was a contract employee and according to the letter of appointment, the services of the petitioner could be terminated at any stage and for that purpose no inquiry or show cause notice was required. Since the services of the petitioner were not required, so his services were terminated in accordance with terms of agreement.

9. The admitted position in the instant case is that the petitioner was a contract employee. The appointment being contractual and in terms of contract the same could be dispensed with on one month's notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. If the petitioner is aggrieved of pre-mature termination, the only remedy available to him is action in tort for damages but no writ can be issued to force the unwilling employer to keep the petitioner in service.

' In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.