NASIMULLAH vs BOARD OF REVENUE, N: W.F.P. And 2 Others
The petitioner, a former Patwari and Qanungo, sought the regularization of his service as a Naib-Tehsildar, claiming entitlement under Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, on the basis that he held an ad hoc appointment prior to September 20, 1986. The Service Tribunal had previously denied his claim, determining that his appointment was a temporary, stop-gap arrangement rather than an ad hoc appointment, and noting his unsatisfactory service record. The petitioner further argued that his case was analogous to that of another employee, Muhammad Nihar, whose service regularization had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's specific appointment as a Naib-Tehsildar qualified for regularization under the statutory provisions of the 1987 Act. The Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine whether the petitioner's employment status fell within the scope of Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, thereby determining if he was entitled to the relief sought.
- Does an appointment made as a stop-gap arrangement qualify for regularization under Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987?
- Is a civil servant holding a temporary promotion entitled to regularization under the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, if they have a patchy service record?
- Section 3, N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987
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 Naib-- Tehsildar 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 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.