MUBASHAR MAJEED vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 3 others

' Today only C.M. No,225 of 2017 for grant of interim relief is fixed but with the consent of the parties, the main case is also taken up for decision.

' JAWAD HASSAN, J:--- Through this appeal, the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No,27233/2013, whereby the constitutional petition of the Appellant was disposed of with the observation that the termination of the Appellant on the basis of allegations contained in show cause notice is held illegal and his termination would be consider simpliciter.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition without considering the factual as well as legal points raised by the Appellants, as such the same is liable to be set aside; that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into account the fact that the contract appointment of the Appellant was terminated without adopting, the procedure prescribed by law; that the termination of the Appellant is against the principle of natural justice: that the fact of discriminatory attitude with the appellant has been totally ignored' by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.

3. On the contrary the learned Law Officer vehemently contested the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order which has been passed in accordance with law; that although the Appellant was a contract employee and there was no need to hold an inquiry or to adopt any procedure for termination of his contract but even then after affording the Appellant an opportunity of defence and personal hearing the termination order was passed; that the contract of the Appellant has already been expired on 09.02.2011, as such he cannot claim reinstatement in service; that to claim extension in contract is not the vested right of the Appellant, as such the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard the arguments of. Both the sides and also perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the Appellant was appointed on contract basis initially for a period of one year on 02.02.2009. The Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2013 on the basis of which his contract has been terminated. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan titled Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCM R 120), there is no vested right on the basis of which the Petitioner employed on contract can seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above mentioned judgment has held that a contract employee instead of pressing for his reinstatement of service for the left over period can at best claim damages to the extent of the un-expired period of service. It has also been held that contract of service cannot be specially enforced The contract employees are governed by the doctrine of master and servant and in the event of arbitrary dismissal or unwarranted termination of employment, the employee can sue for damages equal to wages, allowances and other benefits which would have been otherwise been payable under the contract of employment.

' Furthermore, recently the Honourable Supreme Court in Ameer Solangi v. WAPDA, (2016 SCM R 46) held as under: "the appointment letter dated 27.03.1995 spells out the status of the appellants. It is mentioned in the appointment letter that the appellants shall be employed on contract basis and shall have no right to claim regular absorption in the WAPDA. It was further provided that the terms and conditions of the appellants would be governed by the Contract. This clear distinction creates a separate category of the appellants who have been shown to be employed on contract in the Project and extension in their contract period during the completion process of the Project does not give them any right to claim regularization in the WAPDA. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has been duly answered in the judgment of this Court in the case of Anwar Ali Sahto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2002 SC 101."

6. We fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge who observed that admittedly the contract of the Appellant stood completed on 09.02.2011 and thereafter the Appellant cannot claim extension of the contract as a matter of right rather it is prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of the Appellant or to continue with the same by extending the contract.

7. As the Appellant was a contract employee and was governed by the principle of master and servant therefore, the Appellant does not have any vested right to seek extension of the contract. It is an established principle that in such like cases the constitutional petition is not maintainable. The bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed in line with the dictates of law and the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, as such does not warrant any interference by us. Furthermore, there remains no stigma on the Appellant as the show-cause notice containing certain allegations against the Appellant has been held to be illegal vide the impugned order and the termination of the Appellant has rightly been held to be considered simpliciter.

8. In view of above, we agree with the findings of the learned Single Ju4ge and see no reason or justification to interfere in the same. Consequently, the instant Intra-Court Appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 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.