Find a Lawyer

Cases Nos. 350, 355 and 367 of 1982, decided on 8th August, 1982.

‑‑ S. 10‑Ad hoc appointment‑Termination of‑Notice of one month‑Ad hoc appointment initially made for 6 months‑Period extended with clear stipulation that ad hoc appointment will be terminated forthwith on arrival of selectees of Public Service Com mission‑Notification of termination after arrival of such selectees, in circumstances, held, not legal due to failure of service of notice.

Abdul Hamid Butt for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Messrs Anwar Mehtab Zaidi, Masud‑ul‑Hassan and Malik Javed Ahmad have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded, The Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Depart ment and the Director, Labour Welfare, Punjab, Lahore, as Respon dents.

2. By virtue of these appeals, they have prayed that the operation of the impugned order dated 11th July, 1982, being illegal, may be stayed and Respondent No.1 be directed to consider the request of the Appellant pending before him, allowing the appellants to continue in service on ad hoc basis.

3. These appeals are still at the stage of preliminary hearing. The Appellants were appointed as Labour Officers on ad hoc basis, vide Government of the Punjab Labour Department's order dated 18th July, 1981. Their ad hoc appointments were extended for a period of six months or till the selectees of the Punjab Public Service Commission be same available whichever was earlier vide Government of the Punjab, Labour Department's order dated 22nd March, 1982. As the selectees of the Punjab Public Service Commission became available, the ad hoc appointments of the Appellants were terminated vide Government of the Punjab Labour Department's orders dated 17th July, 1982. Hence these appeals.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Labour Department and have perused the record of their case carefully. The fact of the matter is that Appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months vide Labour Department's Notification No. Lab. (1)2 (4)/75 (P‑II) dated 18th July, 1981. The period of their ad hoc appointments was extended for a. period of six months vide notification dated 28th March, 1982, in which it was clearly indicated that when the selectees of the Punjab Public Service Commission would report for duty, the ad hoc appointments of the Appellants, would be terminated forthwith.

5. We have seen the record of this case and find that the advice of the Punjab Public Service Commission regarding selectees was received in the month of April but the Department taking lenient view with the Appellants allowed them to complete their extended period of ad hoc appointments. The factual position now is that the Governor of the Punjab, has not extended any further period of ad hoc appointees, there fore, they would be deemed to have been terminated from their services on the expiry of the earlier period. Learned Counsel for the Appellants laid lot of stress on the point that under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, it was incumbent and obligatory upon the Respondents to serve the Appellants with one month notice, therefore, the order of termination (impugned) would be illegal. We do find a bit force in the arguments but the same is whittled down when we take into con sideration the extension of the said ad hoc appointments wherein the appellants were fully held that even after the day of said notification the selectees of the Punjab Public Service Commission, would have arrived, the services of the Appellants would stand terminated.

6. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the argument that the failure of the service of the notice by the Respondents to the Appellants, would make the notification by which their services have bee terminated, illegal. However, it is directed that the period of service with the Department under the stay order of this Tribunal, may be com pensated with pay etc. In the above terms the appeals are dismissed being without any merits. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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