ABDUL GHAFOOR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the status of the petitioner, who claimed to be a civil servant employed as a dispenser at the Government Degree College, Hafizabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner held the status of a civil servant despite the absence of a formal appointment order from a competent authority. The Service Tribunal had previously examined the record and determined that the petitioner received no remuneration for a specific period, was appointed as a part-time dispenser on a fixed honorarium, and that no regular sanctioned post existed for his appointment. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the Tribunal and found no infirmity in its conclusion that the petitioner was not a regular civil servant. The Court held that the mere endorsement by an administrative authority regarding the drawing of pay against a post does not constitute a valid appointment order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that a formal appointment order by a competent authority is essential to establish the status of a civil servant.
- Does the absence of a formal appointment order by a competent authority preclude an individual from being classified as a civil servant?
- Can an administrative endorsement regarding the payment of salary be construed as a valid appointment order to a sanctioned post?
- Is an individual working on a part-time honorarium basis considered a regular civil servant?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether the petitioner was a civil servant holding the post of dispenser in the Government Degree College, Hafizabad. Admittedly, there is no formal order issued by any competent authority appointing him as such. The Tribunal has gone through the relevant record and observed: ' On going through the record we find that the appellant received no remuneration from 1-3-75 to the beginning of the summer vacation. This was at his own request. He was appointed part-time Dispenser w.e.f, 18-8-1975 on Rs,60 P.M. Honorarium. He was not a regular civil servant, there being no regular post to which he could be appointed. The Principal's statement in his letter, dated 20-11- 1975 to respondent No,2 that the appellant was working since 1-3-1975 means just that and not that he was working against a sanctioned post of regular Dispenser. The endorsement of the A.D.
2. Colleges on this letter that his pay may be drawn against the regularised post of Dispenser is not a letter of appointment issued to the appellant".
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the findings of the learned Tribunal suffer from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.