MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs DR. ARSHAD MALIK, C. S. P., CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT FAMILY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_CHAIRMAN, FAMILY PLANNING BOARD, LAHORE
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed by former temporary Family Planning Officers whose services were terminated by the Family Planning Department. The core legal question was whether temporary government employees, whose services were terminated due to unsatisfactory performance, are entitled to a show-cause notice under the constitutional framework, despite the temporary nature of their employment. The Supreme Court held that the petitions must be dismissed. The Court reasoned that under Article 179(2) of the Constitution, temporary employees are expressly denied the protections afforded by Articles 175 to 178, which would otherwise require an opportunity to show cause against termination. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the High Court correctly refused to exercise writ jurisdiction, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate that any specific law enacted under Article 174 provided them with a right to a hearing. The Court clarified that if the petitioners felt aggrieved by the stigma attached to their termination or alleged a breach of service conditions, their appropriate remedy lay in seeking redress through civil courts rather than through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
- Are temporary government employees entitled to a show-cause notice before the termination of their services under the Constitution of 1962?
- Does the High Court have writ jurisdiction to adjudicate the termination of temporary government employees where no statutory right to a hearing exists?
- Can temporary employees claim the protection of Articles 175 to 178 of the Constitution of 1962?
- Article 174, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 175, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 176, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 177, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 178, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 179, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 151 and 157 of 1969, in which a common question of law is involved. The first is by Muhammad Ashraf and the second by Mushtaq Ahmad, both of whom were employed as Family Planning Supervisors in the Family Planning Department in the year 1965 and later promoted as Family Planning Officers.
2. These appointments were purely on a temporary basis and liable to termination without assignment of any reason on payment of one month's salary. Tire services of Muhammad Ashraf were terminated with effect from the 1st of May 1968, by a letter dated the 1st of November 1968, on the ground that he was absent from his area since May 1968, and had not made payments to daees and Secretaries of the area, although he had been provided the funds for the same. It was further observed in the letter that the performance of Muhammad Ashraf since July 1967, was deplorable. His pay for the month of April 1968, was forfeited in lieu of one month's notice under the conditions of his service. The services of Mushsaq Ahmad were terminated oil the 17th of July 1967, on account of unsatisfactory perform--ance, but he was given one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. Both the petitioners moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court have refused to grant them relief on the ground as recorded in the dismissal order, that the Family Planning Department was admittedly a temporary Department to which the petitioners were appointed as temporary employees and therefore under Article 179
(2) of the Constitution they did not have the protection of Articles 175 to 178 to have been afforded opportunities to show cause against the termination of their services.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the termination of the petitioners' services was due to the unsatis--factory performance of their duty which involved a stigma to their conduct, they were entitled to a show-cause notice before their services were dispensed with. This argument is untenable in view of the clear terms of Article 179 of the Constitution which has denied to the temporary employees like the petitioners, the protection of Articles 175 to 178. The learned counsel has not been able to show to us that any law has been framed as envisaged by Article 174 of the Constitution for regulating the services of the petitioners, which ensures a right of hearing to them before the termination of their services.
4. If the petitioners consider that they have been unduly stigmatized or the termination of their service in the manner as done by the Department, is in violation of the terms and conditions of their service, they can, if so advised, seek their redress in the civil Courts. The matter was clearly beyond the ambit of the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
5. The petitions are dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ JAVAID CHAUDHRY ABDUL RASHID ABBAS MUMTAZ 1974 PLC 243
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ JAVAID CHAUDHRY, ABDUL RASHID Abbasi, MUMTAZ 1974 PLD Supreme Court 393
- JAFAR ALI AKHTAR YOUSAFZAI vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER 1970 PLD Quetta 115