MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, MARITIME SECURITY AGENCY
The petitioner, a Draftsman appointed on a temporary basis in BPS-14, challenged the termination of his services before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. The matter reached the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether a civil servant appointed on a temporary basis against a temporary post possesses a vested legal right to retain that position or claim reinstatement after the post is abolished. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, holding that the petitioner's appointment was explicitly temporary and the post itself was abolished due to administrative decisions by the Ministry of Defence. The Court reasoned that because the underlying post was not permanent and the appointment was temporary, the petitioner had no legal claim to the position. Consequently, the Court affirmed that a temporary employee whose post is abolished holds no enforceable right to continued employment or to insist on appointment to a lower-graded post, thereby dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
- Does a civil servant appointed on a temporary basis against a temporary post have a legal right to continue in service after the post is abolished?
- Can a temporary employee insist on appointment to a lower-graded post after their original temporary post is abolished?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J--Petitioner was appointed as Draftsman in BPS-14 vide order dated 13-3-1988 on temporary basis. His services were terminated by order dated 15-7-1990. He filed departmental appeal' but on getting so response filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. During the hearing before Tribunal stand was taken in the comments that appointment of petitioner was purely on temporary basis and was discontinued for the reason that Ministry of Defence disallowed continuation of 67 civilian posts including the post petitioner resulting in termination of 67 persons. Subsequently in 1991, 48 posts were sanctioned on yearly basis including post of Draftsman lowered down to BPS-7. Petitioner was offered the post of Draftsman in the lowered grade but he declined and insisted on appointment in BPS-14. Service Tribunal dismissed appeal of the petitioner.
2. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show us that appointment of petitioner was not temporary in nature when his services were terminated. Not only the appointment was temporary in nature but the post against which petitioner was appointed was not permanent but temporary and was abolished. Petitioner cannot claim any legal right in respect of his appointment on temporary basis against a temporary post. We see no flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the Service Tribunal to which no exception can be taken. In the result leave is refused and the petition is dismissed which has no merits.