Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No.4730 of 1986, heard on 25th February, 1987.
--Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction, Exercise of--Employment of retired civil servant on contractual basis whereby services could be terminated on one month's notice Constitutional jurisdiction, held, could not be exercised in favour of a petitioner whose services had been terminated in accordance with terms of contract.--[Civil services].
Petitioner in Person.
Farooq Bedar Asstt. A.-G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987.
M.A. Rashid son of Ch. Sher Muhammad, Enforcement Officer, Food Directorate, Punjab, Lahore, has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
On 9-10-1985, the petitioner retired as Enforcement Officer after serving the Food Department for 32 years. On 10-10-1985 he was re-employed for two years. The term was to expire on 10-10-1987.
On 20-10-1986, the petitioner was served with a notice whereby his services were terminated. He has filed this petition against the termination order.
The petitioner appeared in person and argued his case. His grievance is that he had a brilliant and excellent record as Enforcement Officer. He detected and prosecuted many cases and thus saved National Exchequer from a tremendous financial loss. He had meritorious record. This was the reason that the Government re-employed him but subsequently his services were terminated in an arbitrary manner and contrary to the public interest.
This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 3-11-1986. Thereafter, number of adjournments were given to the petitioner at his request as he was sure that respondent No.2 was likely to withdraw the notice terminating his services and allow him to complete the term of two years. Unfortunately, it did not so happen.
It is not possible to keep this petition pending indefinitely. So, I have heard the arguments today.
The petition has been opposed by the Assistant Advocate-General who is assisted by Muhammad Azeem, Section Officer, Food Department, on the ground that the petitioner after retirement was employed on contractual basis. He as such has no vested right to come to this Court and challenge the notice of termination. He drew my attention to clause 8 of the agreement which is as follows:-
- His services will be liable to terminate during terms of the-employment on one month's notice on either side. "
He argued that on basis of this condition the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner having accepted the said condition cannot take exception to the impugned termination order.
Unfortunately, the petitioner has no case. Having retired and re-employed on contractual basis his services can be terminated in accordance with the clause referred to above. As such, I am unable to help him. Nevertheless, I feel that an officer of his calibre should not have been thrown out in such an arbitrary manner keeping in view his meritorious record and the services rendered by him for the Department.'
No order as to costs.
A . A / M-110/ L Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer