Agha MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER And 2 Other
The petitioner, appointed as a Cameraman on an ad hoc basis and later regularized in the Inter-Services Public Relations Directorate, was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia. Upon his repatriation and reporting back for duty, he was informed that his services were terminated under Section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, as he had become surplus due to the non-availability of a substantive post, the existing one being occupied by another employee. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, leading to the filing of a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the termination of the civil servant on the ground of becoming surplus was justified when no substantive post was available. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's termination was lawful as he failed to prove the availability of a vacant post upon his return. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a civil servant may be declared surplus and terminated under the law when no vacancy exists.
- Whether the services of a civil servant can be terminated on becoming surplus due to the non-availability of a substantive post?
- Does a civil servant have a right to reinstatement upon repatriation from deputation if no vacant post is available?
- Section 11, Civil Servants Act 1973
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---The petitioner was appointed as a Cameraman (Grade-16) on ad hoc basis in Inter-Services Public Relations Directorate, G.H.Q. On 12-6-1980 and was regularized by the recommendations of the Federal Service Commission in January, 1981. He was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia in May, 1983 and was repatriated to Pakistan in September, 1983 and reported for duty at his parent unit on 6-11-1986 where he was informed that his services were terminated under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 on having become surplus because of non-availability of a substantive post and the existing one was held by Mr. Riazuddin.
2. The petitioner filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 21-2-1989. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment. We have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition which deserves dismissal forthwith. As the petitioner failed to prove that there was a post of Cameraman available against which he should have been appointed on his return from Saudi Arabia because the one available was already occupied by Mr: Riazuddin and on his return from Saudi Arabia to his substantive post and thus the petitioner was rightly declared as surplus.
4. Under the circumstances, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave. It is accordingly dismissed.