MUFIAMMAD,FAROOQ vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNAJB through Secretary
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Inker on an ad hoc basis for one year, with his service subject to termination without notice, and continued in service for over a decade through extensions until his termination. The core legal question concerns whether an ad hoc employee who has served continuously for a long duration without a break, and whose service was extended, is entitled to regularization or protection against termination, and whether he was discriminated against compared to similarly situated employees whose services were regularized. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions, holding that the questions raised merit detailed examination.
- Whether an ad hoc employee continuously serving for a long duration is entitled to regularization of service?
- Does the termination of an ad hoc employee after prolonged service without a break amount to discrimination when similarly placed employees are regularized?
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DO.GAR, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11,3- 2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Service Appeal No,1067 of 1993 whereby the same was dismissed.
2. The background of the filing of the instant petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Inker on ad hoc basis on 15-2-1990 by. Respondent No,2 for a period of one year with a clear stipulation that service could be terminated at any time without notice and assigning of any reason. ' His service was being extended on the directive of the Chief Minister and till arrival of a suitable incumbent. However, it was on 21-9-1993 his ad hoc appointment was terminated. His departmental appeal to respondent No,1 was also rejected on 31st October, 1993. Thereafter, he challenged the said order in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, wherein he succeeded in getting stay and continued to be in service till the impugned judgment dated 5-3- 2002 was passed.
3. It has been contended by Mr. Abdul Wahid. Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court' for the petitioner that the petitioner though appointed on ad hoc basis yet continued in service and has thus completed about 13 years without any break. According to him, the petitioner had been discriminated with others who though in the same category were regularized. In support of his contention, he referred to the leave granting order passed in Muhammad Abbas v. Executive Engineer and others (C.P. No,570-L of 1998 on 12-8-1999) wherein the petitioner a Patwari appointed on ad hoc basis was granted leave to appeal by this Court.
4. Accordingly, leave to appeal is also granted in this case to consider, inter alia, the above contentions.