ZAHEER AHMAD Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has put a challenge to letter, dated 26.09.2019, issued by the AVP/Branch Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Shahpur Saddar Branch whereby he was relieved of his duties as Cash Officer, OG-III.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mala fide on the part of the respondents is evident from the fact that though co-selectees of the petitioner have been accommodated by way of extension in their contract but the petitioner has been discriminated. Adds that as no reasons to relieve the petitioner have been given by the competent authority the impugned letter cannot sustain.

3. Conversely, learned counsel representing the Bank, while relying upon judgments reported as Owais Shams Durrani and others v. Vice Chancellor, Bacha Khan University, Charsadda and another (2020 SCMR 1041), Qazi Munir Ahmed v. Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital through Principal and others (2019 SCMR 648), Government of Balochistan, Department of Health through Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar and 43 others (2005 SCMR 642), Muhammad Azam Suhail and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and others (1998 SCMR 1549), Asmat Ullah Jan v. Messrs National Bank of Pakistan through President/CEO and 4 others (2020 PLC (C.S.) 217), Tahir Pervaiz, Director-General, Legal Affairs, Pakistan Railways v. Federation of Pakistan and 6 others (2019 PLC (C.S.) 339) and Muhammad Babar Akbar v. Water and Power Development Authority through General Manager and 3 others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 729) submits that Constitutional Petition against termination of contract is not maintainable and aggrieved person can approach the Civil Court for recovery of damages, if any.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition.

5. A perusal of the appointment letter, dated 12.08.2016, shows that his term of contract was for three years meaning thereby that his tenure of contact has already expired, thus, the respondents cannot be directed to extend his contract as they are in a better position to decide as to whether service of an employee is further required or not.

6. Insofar as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons in the relieving letter have been given, is concerned, suffice it to note that when in the appointment letter it was clarified that his appointment would come to end on the expiry of contract period, there was no need to give any reason.

7. Even otherwise, a contract employee cannot approach this Court by filing a Constitutional Petition agitating grievance qua his contractual employment.

8. For what has been noted above, I see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.

SA/Z-8/L Petition dismissed.