MUBARAK ALI And Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Industries And Mineral Development Department

ORDER

FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.--This is petition for leave to appeal against the order, dated 8-2-1994 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the Writ Petition No. 1534 of 1991 filed by the petitioners, seeking direction against the respondents to regularise their services, was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that 316 posts of Assistant Engineers in various departments of the Government of Punjab were sanctioned by the then Chief Minister on 15-8-1987. Of these posts 2 posts of Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis were allocated to "Industries and Mineral Development Department".

3. After fulfilment of all the necessary formalities petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers vide their appointment letters dated 26-7-1989 and 3-8-1989 respectively on contract basis. The petitioners, however, received letter dated 3-5-1990 informing them that their appointment had not been regularised. Accordingly, they made representation seeking regularisation of their services in accordance with the Notification No. SDO (C&W)3-100/89, dated 29-4-1990. According to notification all those Engineers who were working on ad hoc basis up to 17-1-1989 had been regularised. The representation was rejected and their services were terminated.

4. The petitioners challenged the order of termination of their services in writ petition filed in the High Court on the ground that they have unfairly discriminated as 16 other persons similarly placed had since been adjusted against other vacancies. The learned High Court, however, on its finding that the petitioners had been appointed on contract basis, therefore, on expiry of the contract period they had been left with no vested right, dismissed the writ petition. It was further observed that the petitioners failed to furnish particulars of the persons against whom they alleged unfairly discrimination.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the same arguments, which did not prevail with the learned High Court. From the perusal of the record it is evident that services of those ad hoc employees were regularised who had been serving as such since 17-1-1989. The petitioners were neither working as such since 17-1-1989, because they had been appointed in July, 1989, and more so they were not appointed on ad hoc basis but on contract basis. The learned counsel even at this stage, failed to point out the particulars of the aforementioned 16 persons against whom he claims unfairly discrimination. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court and dismiss the petition.