ASAD ULLAH MUNIR TARRAR vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
The appellant, an ad hoc Sub-Engineer, challenged the termination of his services, arguing that he was entitled to continue until a regularly selected incumbent replaced him, citing Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He further alleged discrimination, noting that junior employees had been regularized pursuant to a Chief Minister's directive, which also covered him. The respondent argued that ad hoc appointments confer no vested right to continuation or regularization and that the termination complied with government policy. The Tribunal held that under Section 10(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, an ad hoc appointee is entitled to continue until a regular replacement is found, subject to the 'last come, first go' principle and the requirement of one month's notice or salary. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant could not be discriminated against when similarly situated juniors had been regularized, particularly given an explicit directive from the Chief Minister. The appeal was allowed, the termination order set aside, and the appellant's service ordered to be regularized.
- Does an ad hoc civil servant have a right to continue in service until a regularly selected incumbent is appointed?
- Is an ad hoc employee entitled to notice or salary in lieu of notice before the termination of their services?
- Can the state discriminate against an employee by regularizing their juniors while denying the same to the employee despite a directive from the Chief Minister?
- Section 10, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Section 10(2), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Rule 22(2), Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974
' AKHTAR HASSAN (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant Mr. Asad Ullah Munir Tararr, Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) Mughaipura Irrigation Division, Lahore was appointed as such vide the order dated 11-3-1990 (Annexure A) on ad hoc basis, for a period of one year, or till appointment of a recommendee of the D.S.C. Whichever was earlier. The appointment was extended from time to time till 18-8-1993 when it was abruptly terminated by an order (Annexure E) of even date. He preferred a departmental representation against it but the same was rejected by the order dated 11-12-1993 (Annexure G) and hence the instant appeal.
2. It was asserted that quite a few other appeals, brought against termination of similar ad hoc appointments, were not only admitted by this Tribunal to regular hearing, but also operation of the orders was suspended mainly on the ground that under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, such an appointee would have a right to continue till a regularly selected incumbent was appointed to replace him. It was added that rule 22(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 was wrongly involved to terminate the appellant's service inasmuch as it was repugnant to section 10 ibid and likewise reliance on the Supreme Court judgment on that behalf was equally inapt in that neither the appellant was a party to it nor did it discuss the provisions of sections 10 ibid.
3. Still further it was contended that while a number of such employees quite junior to him, had been regularised on the directive of the Chief Minister, the, appellant was denied such treatment by ignoring the Chief Minister's directive dated 20-10-1990 (Annexure K) whereby he too was ordered to be regularised and that thereby he had been exposed to serious discrimination. Consequently, he prayed for continuance of his job and also sought its regularisation as per directive of the Chief Minister referred to above.
4. The appeal was opposed/reiterating that there was no vested right in continuing an ad hoc appointment nor in claiming its regularisation and that it was terminated according to the Government Policy which in turn rested on the Supreme Court judgment. It was observed, in addition, that lately the Punjab Public Service Commission had selected incumbents to fill the posts occupied by ad hoc employees and that even in terms of section 10 ibid, the appellant had no choice to stick to it. In regard to regularisation of service of his juniors, it was explained that the matter was under active consideration of the Department but so far no final orders were passed.
5. The appellant's contention that there existed a number of posts of the Sub-Engineer, was not disproved by producing any material. The result would be that the appellant will have a right to be adjusted against any of them till all are filled on regular basis by properly selected incumbents. The principle of last come first go, shall be applicable and further under section 10(2), a month's notice and salary will also have to be paid before the so-called termination is ordered. The impugned order was not shown to have conformed to these requirements and as a result it could not be sustained.
6. Next, quite a few juniors of the appellant were regularised. Anncxures L, M, N, 0 & P were undisputed example of regularisation of services of the concerned Sub-Engineers. The appellant was amply right in urging that he could not be discriminated against especially when the Chief Minister in his directive dated 23-9-1993 (Annexure D) had clearly ordered that his service as well be so regularised. The learned DA had nothing substantial to say against it, nor were the written objections categorical in denying existence of those regularisations. The rule of equal treatment would not permit such inequality vis-a-vis persons similarly circumstanced.
7. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is reinstated as ad hoc employee and shall continue to hold such tenure till today whereafter his services shall stand regularised as per directive of the Chief Minister dated 20-10-1990 (Annexure K).
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD WASAY TAREEN vs HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN through Registrar High Court Building Quetta and another 2005 PLC (C.S.) 652
- Rana TARIQ SHAUKAT and 634 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 400
- Rana Tariq Shaukat And Other vs Government Of The Punjab Through Secretary Education Civil Secretariat, Lahore And Other K.L.R. 2003 Labour &e Services Cases 19