FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others vs ANWAR KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, Anwar Khan, into service with full back benefits. The respondent was initially appointed as an Overseer, Grade-I, and subsequently considered fit for retention in service by the competent authority. Following a period of deputation abroad, the respondent was discharged from service upon his return, with the petitioner citing him as surplus. The core legal question was whether the respondent held the status of a regular employee, thereby rendering his discharge unlawful, or if he was a temporary employee subject to discharge. The Supreme Court held that since the appointment letter did not specify that the respondent was appointed against a temporary post or that he was subject to discharge at any time, and given the finding of fitness for retention, he was a regular employee. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent, affirming that regular employees cannot be summarily discharged without valid cause.
- Whether an employee whose appointment letter lacks a stipulation of temporary status or liability for discharge can be treated as a temporary employee?
- Does a finding of fitness for retention in service by a competent authority confer the status of a regular employee?
- Can a government employee be discharged on the grounds of being surplus without evidence of their temporary status?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against order dated 11-5-1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by Anwar Khan respondent was accepted and the order dated 10-5-1992, passed by the petitioner No, 3 discharging him from service was set aside. In consequence the respondent was reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that Anwar Khan respondent was appointed as Overseer,. Grade-I, E&M, in the Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar, on 10-11-1985, against an existing vacancy. He was to remain on probation for one year extendable either before or after its termination for a further period not exceeding six months. He was also considered fit for retention in service by order dated 3-11-1986, passed by the competent authority. On the basis of his performance he was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia for a period of three years, After completing his assignment in the foreign county, he returned to Pakistan and reported for duty on 6-1-1992. He, however, was not allowed to resume duty, instead he was discharged from service on 10-5-1992, on the ground that he had become surplus. Anwar Khan represented against the aforesaid order of his discharge from service but of no avail.
3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was accepted vide impugned order dated 11-5-1993, and he was reinstated in service with all back benefits. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the respondent was a temporary employee having no lien against a substantive post, the order of his discharge from service was validly passed by the competent authority. He, however, could not controvert the fact that in the appointment letter issued to the respondent there was no mention that he was appointed against a temporary post or that he could be discharged from service at any time. The learned Deputy Attorney-General was unable to show either from the appointment letter or from a letter indicating his fitness for retention in service, that he was not a regular employee. The finding of the learned Federal Service Tribunal holding the respondent a regular employee and reinstating him in service with all back benefits is subject to no exception. In our view this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal.
5. In the result, we find no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.