Pakistan Case Law
1987 MLD 153

M.A. RASHID vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 MLD 153
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No.4730 of 1986
Date1987-02-25
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter involves a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by a retired Enforcement Officer of the Food Department challenging the termination of his contractual re-employment. The core legal question is whether a re-employed civil servant serving on a contractual basis can challenge the termination of their services when such termination is executed in accordance with a specific clause in the employment agreement providing for termination on one month's notice. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being employed on a contractual basis, was bound by the terms of the agreement, which explicitly allowed for termination on one month's notice, and thus had no vested right to challenge the termination order under writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that contractual terms regarding termination agreed upon by a re-employed civil servant govern their employment status, precluding judicial interference under writ jurisdiction when invoked in accordance with the contract, notwithstanding any past meritorious service.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a re-employed government servant on a contractual basis have a vested right to challenge the termination of their services under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can services held on a contractual basis be terminated in accordance with the stipulated notice clause in the employment agreement?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
constitutional petitioncontractual re-employmenttermination of servicesvested rightmaster and servantwrit jurisdiction

1. ' M.A. Rashid son of Ch. Sher Muhammad, Enforcement Officer, Food Directorate, Punjab, Lahore, has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

2. ' On 9-10-1985, the petitioner retired as Enforcement Officer after serving the Food Department for 32 years. On 10-10-1985 he was re-employed for two years. The term was to expire on 10-10-1987.

3. ' On 20-10-1986, the petitioner was served with a notice whereby his services were terminated. He has filed this petition against the termination order.

4. ' The petitioner appeared in person and argued his case. His grievance is that he had a brilliant and excellent record as Enforcement Officer. He detected and prosecuted many cases and thus saved National Exchequer from a tremendous financial loss. He had meritorious record. This was the reason that the Government re-employed him but subsequently his services were terminated in an arbitrary manner and contrary to the public interest.

5. ' This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 3-11-1986. Thereafter, number of adjournments were given to the petitioner at his request as he was sure that respondent No.2 was likely to withdraw the notice terminating his services and allow him to complete the term of two years.

6. Unfortunately, it did not so happen.

7. ' It is not possible to keep this petition pending indefinitely. SO, I have heard the arguments today.

8. ' The petition has been opposed by the Assistant Advocate-General who is assisted by Muhammad Azeem, Section Officer, Food Department, on the ground that the petitioner after retirement was employed on contractual basis. He as such has no vested right to come to this Court and challenge the notice of termination. He drew my attention to clause 8 of the agreement which is as follows:- ' "Termination of services.-- His services will be liable to terminate during terms of re-employment on one month's notice on either side."

9. ' He argued that on basis of this condition, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner having accepted the said condition cannot take exception to the impugned termination order.

10. ' Unfortunately, the petitioner has no case. Having retired and re-employed on contractual basis his services can be terminated in accordance with the clause referred to above. As such, I am unable to help him. Nevertheless, I feel that an officer of his calibre should not have been thrown out in such an arbitrary manner keeping in view his meritorious record and the services rendered by him for the Department.

11. Dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.

Cited by 8 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.