TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI vs SAQIB SAMDANI

' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7- 10-2010 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi Bench, in Appeal No,747(K)CS of 2000.

2. Precisely stated the facts called out from the record are that on intervention of Prime Minister, the respondent was appointed in the year 1999 as senior clerk on contract basis vide agreement effective from 30-6-1999 for a period of one year. It seems that before expiry of contractual period the respondent made an application dated 22-6-2000 in response whereto he was informed that his contract was to expire on 30-6-2000 and that the rights of the parties stood determined as agreed in the said agreement. On 12-8-2000 respondent filed departmental appeal which was dismissed on 11-10-2000. He, therefore, preferred Service Appeal No,747(K)CS of 2000 which was allowed, the order/letter dated 29-6-2000 was set-aside and the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the respondent in service while the intervening period was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due vide judgment impugned herein.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the respondent was purely a contract employee for a period of one year which expired on 30-6-2000 as per agreement with stipulation that the employer was even made entitled within terms of the agreement to dispense with his service on giving one month's notice, therefore, he could not be reinstated into the service on service appeal which was not maintainable before the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent argued that the respondent was rightly appointed on the criteria of sons' quota on the retirement of his father, therefore, he was rightly reinstated into service by the Federal Service Tribunal under the impugned order passed with jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon (i)

Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 2007 SC 681), (ii)

Karachi Port Trust through Chairman Board of Trustee v. Altaf Ahmed and another (1996 SCMR 1205) and (iii) Chairman, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Islamabad v. Nasir Ahmad and others (1995 SCM R 1593) to fortify his arguments.

4. We have given due consideration to the submissions of both learned counsel and with their assistance we have gone through the material made available on record. It is an admitted fact that on the intervention of the Prime Minister the respondent was appointed on contract basis by way of an agreement, the relevant terms whereof are reproduced as follows:-- "WHEREAS the employer has agreed to employ Mr. Saqib Samdani son of Shoaib Ahmed Samdani on contract basis as Senior Clerk and Mr. Saqib Samdani son of Shoaib Ahmed Samdani has agreed to serve the employer as such.

' NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOW:

(1) This Agreement shall commence from 30th June, 1999 and shall remain in force for a period of one year only.

(2)

(3)

(4) Notwithstanding the period of service mentioned in Clause-(1) supra the Employee shall be entitled to resign the service of the Employer by giving one Calendar month notice to the employer or one month's pay in lieu of such notice. No leave of any kind shall be admissible to the employee from the date of such notice or surrender of one month's pay in lieu of notice. The employer shall like-wise be entitled to dispense with the. Employee's service on giving one month notice and if the employer dispenses with the service of the Employee forthwith without any such notice the employee will be entitled to only one month's salary payable to him in lieu of the notice, in that case leave may be granted to the employee during the whole or any part of the notice period at the discretion of the employer and such leave if granted shall be counted total leave admissible under Clause-(3) supra."

' It appears that in the instant case respondent at some later time had moved an application dated 22-6-2000 (not produced on record) which was replied by the Assistant Manager (Human Resource)(Port Department) Karachi Port Trust, vide letter dated 29-6-2000 in the following terns:-- "Ref-Your application dated 22-6-2000 ' It is informed that the tenure of Service Agreement executed on 12-3-1999 with regard to your employment on contract basis in KPT is to be expired on 30-6-2000 (F.N.). You may realize that the right of parties stand determined by efflux of time as agreed in the said Agreement."

Evidently the above letter reflects that the respondent was in employment on contract basis, hence no vested right was created in his favour for reinstatement in service. It was not the case where the respondent was appointed as a regular employee against any particular quota to give him a valid cause of action. Equally, the impugned judgment is also silent that termination of service of the respondent violated any of his rights; therefore, in our view his reinstatement under the impugned judgment does not appear to have been validly ordered. The case law cited supra is not helpful to the respondent being in different facts and circumstances. Thus having considered the foregoing, we are of the view that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly we set aside the same. This petition is converted into appeal and allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.