NASIMULLAH vs BOARD OF REVENUE, N.W.F.P. and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the refusal to regularize the petitioner's ad hoc appointment as a Naib-Tehsildar. The petitioner, who joined service as a Patwari in 1961, became a Qanungo in 1971, and was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on an ad hoc basis in 1978, sought regularisation of his service under section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987. The Service Tribunal had previously ruled against the petitioner, holding that he was promoted on a temporary stop-gap arrangement rather than as an ad hoc appointee, and that his promotion was denied due to a patchy record. The petitioner contended his case was analogous to another employee whose service was regularised. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the petitioner's case is covered by section 3 of the said Act.
- Whether a civil servant appointed on an ad hoc basis before 20th September, 1986 is entitled to regularisation of service under section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987?
- Does a temporary promotion as a stop-gap arrangement constitute an ad hoc appointment eligible for regularisation?
- Can an employee claim regularisation of service on the basis of parity with a co-employee whose service was ordered to be regularised?
- Section 3, N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J. ---Petitioner claims that he joined service as Patwari in the year 1961 and was selected as Qanungo in 1971 and his appointment as such was regularised in 1976. In 1978 he was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on ad hoc basis but his appointment is not regularised while in the meantime his juniors have been promoted. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to regularisation of service as he has been holding ad hoc appointment before 20th September, 1986 as is envisaged under section 3 of N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987.
2. On the other hand Service Tribunal has held as is claimed by official respondents that petitioner is not an ad hoc appointee against the post of NaibTehsildar but was promoted on temporary basis as stop-gap arrangement and his promotion could not be regularised as he was not considered fit on account of patchy record. Petitioner also claims that his case is analogous to that of Mr. Muhammad Nihar, ad hoc Naib-Tehsildar, whose service was ordered to be regularised under section 3 of the abovementioned Act by the Service Tribunal and against that order petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court (C.P. No, 209-P of 1991) titled as Commissioner, Peshawar Division and others v. Muhammad Nihar Naib-Tehsildar, which has been dismissed vide order dated 18-5-1992.
3. Leave is granted to consider whether case of the petitioner is covered by section 3 of the Act mentioned above.