MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

ORDER

RAJA MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KAYANI (MEMBER).‑‑ The relevant facts of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed temporarily as storekeeper B‑5 w.e.f. 1‑11‑1989 vice Dil Hussain, storekeeper who had proceeded on leave vide Order No. 2106‑09/Press/84, dated 28‑10‑1984. Mr. Dil Hussain was allowed to resume his duty vide Order No. 433‑35/Press/88, dated 20‑2‑1988 w.e.f. 18‑2‑1988 and the services of the appellant were also dispensed with by the same order. The appellant felt aggrieved by the said order and brought an appeal before respondent No. 2 but his appeal was not successful. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.

2. The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that he held the job of storekeeper for three long years and his removal from service without issue of a show‑cause notice was illegal and unjust. The objections of the respondents are that the appellant held the job of Storekeeper temporarily in the leave arrangement and as such as issue of show-cause notice was hardly necessary for his removal from the office.

3. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had put in more than three years service in the Government Printing Press and the order of his removal from service besides being illegal was passed maliciously.

4. We have given our anxious consideration, to the whole matter. The appointment order‑dated 28‑10‑1984 by which the appellant, was appointed as Storekeeper reads as under:‑‑

5. It is clear from the above appointment order that the appellant was appointed in the leave arrangement. The services of the appellant were dispensed with through the impugned order after Mr. Dil Hussain Storekeeper on leave, was allowed to resume his duties. It was purely a stop‑gap arrangement and under section 10 subsection (1) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, no notice was necessary for his removal from the service. Section 10 subsection (1) of Civil Servants Act is reproduced below:‑‑

10. ?????? Termination of service .‑‑(1) The service of a civil servant may be terminated without notice‑‑

(i) ???????? during the initial ‑or extended period of his probation;

Provided that, where such civil servant is appointed by promotion on respondents are that the appellant held the job of Storekeeper temporarily in the leave arrangement and as such issue of show7cause notice was hardly, necessary for his removal from the office.

Probation or,, as the case may be, is transferred and promoted on probation from .one grade; cadre or post to another grade, cadre or post his service shall not be terminated‑so long as he holds a lien against his former post, grade or cadre, and he shall be reverted to his former grade or as the case maybe, cadre or post..

6. No terms and conditions of the service of the appellant have been violated; therefore, he is not an aggrieved civil servant. The accusation of mala fides under such circumstances .is without any substance and it is not proved on the file.

7. The upshot of the above analysis is that the appeal being devoid of force is dismissed with costs..

M.Y.H./88/Sr. A. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.