Find a Lawyer

DR. ARSHAD MALIK, C. S. P., CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT FAMILY

PLANNING BOARD (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER),

SARGODHA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 151 and 157 of 1969, decided on 31st October 1969.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of ‑the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 8th April 1969 read with the order of even date, in Writ Petitions No. 1984/S of 1968 and No. 1915/67). ,

Arts. 177 & 179‑Termination of service‑Persons appointed purely on temporary basis as Super visors in Family Planning Department removed for inefficiency and dereliction of duties‑Constitutional protection under Art. 177 not available to such employees in view of provisions of Art. 179.

Saeed‑ur‑Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdur Razzaque, Attorney for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).

Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions).

Date of hearing : 31st October 1969.

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. 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.

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.

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.

The petitions are dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.