MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑ The appellant has filed this appeal under section 3 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as mentioned above.

.2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the Order No. S O F‑V. I I-I(34)/77, dated 26th March, 1983 issued by respondent No. 2 be set aside being illegal, null and void. He has also prayed that he be declared to be continuous in service without any break, with all the back benefits

3. This appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Director (Maintenance) in the Food Department, in the Transport Cell during 1977, purely on temporary basis, through Punjab Public Service Commission under the terms and conditions as laid down in his appointment order, dated 26th March, 1977. The appellant worked on purely temporary basis till the year 1981. The Finance Department, Punjab decided to liquidate the fleet of Transport Cell and it was decided by the Finance Department to abolish the post of Assistant Director (Mainte nance) held by appellant w. e. f. 31st May, 1983 which had continued on temporary basis from year to year. In view of the above decision the appellant was informed by the Directorate of Food, on 14th April, 1.983 that he would be relieved of from his charge on 31st May, 1983. This was a notice which was served on the appellant keeping in view the provision of para. 2 of his terms and conditions of appointment, dated 26th March, 1977. On this the appellant made a representation to the Government in the S. G. A. & I. Department, Punjab, for the absorption either in the Food Department or any other Department in an equivalent post. Since the appellant was serving against a post sanctioned on purely temporary basis, not being a member of any regular service, and the post occupied by him was abolished by the Finance Department so he was relieved from his service accordingly. Accordingly, as the appellant was not permanent band or member of a regular cadre, so he was not placed in the surplus pool created in the S. G. A. & I. Department. The appellant sled a Writ Petition No. 2245 of 1983 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine vide order, dated 12th October, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Director (Maintenance) on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission in the year 1917 and continued as such till 1981. Thus, the appellant bad attained the statue of a regular and permanent employee and his services could not be dispensed with on the basis that he was a temporary employee appointed only for the job in the Transport Cell. It has been submitted by him that under the circumstances, the appellant was fully entitled to be absorbed in the Food Department or any other Department in an equivalent post. Hence, the refusal of the respondents for not absorbing him, on equivalent post, is unlawful, unjustified and is against the rules. It has been prayed by the counsel for the appellant that impugned order be set aside and appellant be declared to be continuous in service.

5. On the other hand, we have gone through the parawise comments submitted by the Government of the Punjab, Food Department on this appeal vide their communication, dated 20tb December, 1983, wherein the stand has been taken that the appellant had already filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore on the same issue and his petition was dismissed in limine as per judgment, dated 12th October, 1983 of the Honourable Judge of the Lahore High Court, Mr. Justice Khalil‑ur-Rehman (Appendix‑I with the parawise comments). The Food Depart ment has again submitted that the appellant was a temporary employee and continued as such on year to year basis. As his post was abolished by the Finance Department, Punjab hence, his services were dispensed with lawfully and correctly as per his terms and conditions of his appointment.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the appellant s counsel and have also perused the report/parawise comments submitted by the responding Department. This issue has already been decided by the judgment, dated 12th October, 1983 of Honourable Judge of the Lahore High Court, Mr. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, which is produced as follows :‑---

"Report submitted has been perused. The petitioner was holding a purely temporary post and with the abolition of that post after notice he was relieved from the said post. The plea of the petitioner ' that he could be absorbed against one of the posts of Assistant Directors, which according to him is vacant, is also without any merit as the‑said posts are promotion posts and no direct recruitment against the said posts is possible under the relevant service rules, f In this view of the matter no interference is called for in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine."

In view of the above judgment we consider that there is no merit in this appeal.

7. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed as such, in limine.

M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.