Malik ABDUL REHMAN AWAN Versus BOARD OF DIRECTORS Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid
ORDER
Through the instant Intra Court Appeal the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 09.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.58785/2017 by the learned Single Judge whereby his petition was dismissed in limine.
2. The main grievance of the Appellant is that he was employed in Sargodha Cattle Market Management Company on contract basis for one year w.e.f. 13.04.2016 and his contract was extended till 30.06.2017 but in subsequent Board Meeting held on 22.07.2017, it was decided that the contract period of the Appellant shall not be further extended. The Appellant was informed about this decision vide letter dated 24.07.2017. Feeling aggrieved thereby the Appellant filed writ petition which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order. Hence, the instant Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the contract period of the Appellant has not been extended further on the basis of his alleged poor performance, as such a stigma has been made on his character; that the Appellant should have been provided opportunity of persona hearing which has not been afforded to him; that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has not appreciated the fact of discrimination as the contract period of the other colleagues of the Appellant has been extended while the Appellant has been deprived of the same. Learned counsel also argued that the Appellant has not been afforded opportunity of fair trial, as such he has been condemned unheard on the basis of mala fide.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and examined the record available with this Appeal.
5. The main grievance of the Appellant is that his contract period be extended and his case be considered for regularization of his services. The Appellant was appointed on purely contract basis in the Respondents/Department vide appointment letter dated 13.04.2016. The Appellant after accepting the terms and conditions of his contract employment submitted his joining report. Specific terms in the employment contract, containing certain terms and conditions, are inserted which explicitly reveal that initially this offer of appointment is only for a period of One Year which will be extended further as per government policy and on watching your output as General Manager Operation and in case of poor performance the services of the Petitioner can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Moreover, allegedly the behavior of the Appellant remained unsatisfactory toward his superiors which resulted into not extension of his contract.
6. It is an established principle that where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of master and servant and in such like cases the Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Lt. Col. Rtd. Aamir Rauf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Defence and 3 others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 654) and Nadeem Ahmed v. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited and another (2005 PLC (C.S.) 1447). In view of the settled principle, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Appellant has no vested right on the basis of which he was entitled to relief in a Constitutional petition by holding that the Petitioner has failed to pinpoint any statutory Rules and Regulations which have been violated by the Respondents in issuing letter dated 24.07.2017 for not extending his employment contract.
7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that he was terminated on the basis of stigma of poor performance and no opportunity of fair trial has been afforded to the Appellant is concerned, in this regard the impugned letter shows that the Appellant was not terminated rather his contract has not been extended further after the expiry of cutoff date. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 488) has held that the employee, after accepting terms and conditions of his contract employment had submitted his joining report. Service of such employee could be terminated without assigning any reason. Employee had no right to claim extension in his contract period as a vested right. Behaviour of employee remained unsatisfactory towards his superior which resulted into his termination. In Case titled Mubashar Majeed v. Province of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 940) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also held that employee could not claim extension of the contract as a matter of right rather it was the prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or continue with the same by tending the contract.
8. Furthermore, learned Single Judge has rightly observed in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the reply to displeasure letter was filed by the Appellant and that too the Appellant was provided opportunity to put across his point of view which he did on 21.07.2017 however, his explanation was not found satisfactory. As such, the Appellant cannot say that he has not been afforded opportunity of hearing.
9. In view of above, we see no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge in consonance with the spirit of law, as such does not warrant any interference by us. Consequently, the instant Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
MH/A-92/L Appeal dismissed.