ALAM ZAB KHAN vs COMMISSIONER, AFGHAN REFUGEES, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the termination of his services as a Village Administrator in the Afghan Refugees Organisation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose employment was terminated on the grounds that his services were no longer required, qualified as a 'civil servant' under the relevant statutory framework, thereby granting him the right to maintain an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the petitioner's appointment was explicitly temporary and on a contract basis for a fixed period of two years. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner did not meet the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and thus lacked the standing to maintain an appeal before the Tribunal. The principle laid down is that an employee engaged on a specific, time-bound contract cannot claim the status or protections afforded to civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
- Does an employee appointed on a fixed-term contract basis qualify as a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Is an employee whose services are terminated on a contract basis entitled to maintain an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Civil Servants Act, 1973
1. ' SAEEDUZZAMMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad, dated 5-5-1993. While serving as Village Administrator in the Afghan Refugees Organisation, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 26-12-1992 on the ground that they were no longer required. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dispensing with his services, was rejected whereafter he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after examining the record of the case reached the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner in the office of Commissioner Afghan Refugees N.-W.F.P. Peshawar, was purely temporary and on contract basis for a period of two years. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, in view of the definition of civil servant given in the Civil Servants Act, held that the petitioner was not a Civil Servant and as such was not entitled to maintain his service appeared before the Tribunal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's employment in the Afghan Refugees Organization was for an indefinite period, therefore, he should be treated as temporary employee who was entitled to all the benefits under the Civil Servants Act. We have gone through the order of appointment produced by the petitioner in the case, which specifically described the appointment of the petitioner as on temporary basis and on contract of two years. In these circumstances no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Service Tribunal. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- H. AMANULLAH KHAN vs Sahibzada TARIQULLAH 1997 MLD 612
- Haji AMANULLAH KHAN vs Sahibzada TARIQULLAH and 2 others 1995 CLC 158