' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, ).---This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the order dated 30-4-1997 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby C.P. No,2305 of 1996 filed by appellant was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that appellant was appointed as Assistant Director Labour in BPS-17 by the Government of Sindh vide its notification dated 27-10-1996, initially for a period of six months. However, before the expiry of the said period, his services were terminated on 2-12- 1996, without assigning any reason whatsoever and giving an opportunity of hearing to him.
Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed Constitution Petition before the learned High Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned Additional, A.-G. Sindh for the respondent and have gone through the record and the proceeding of the case in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant having been duly appointed by the competent authority in accordance with the rules, his services could not be terminated arbitrarily without assigning any reason. He further contended that when power is conferred on a public authority, it is required to be exercised justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or whimsically, as has been done in this case. He submitted that the services of the appellant had been terminated in violation of the rules of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing or show-cause notice was given to him before the termination of his service. According to him, in fact the post of Assistant Director against which appellant was working became vacant on the termination of incumbent Malik Munawar Ahmed Tahir, Assistant Director Labour (B-17), whose services were terminated vide Notification dated 22nd May, 1999 with effect from 22-9-1998. The order of termination of appellant was not only ipso facto illegal but also passed in violation of principle of audi alteram partem thus is not sustainable in law. He further contended that appellant has attained the status of permanent employee as he continued in service from the time of his onward appointment till today in view of the order of this Court dated 17-7-1997 and notification dated 16-7-1997 issued by respondent and thus a vested right accrued in his favour to be regularized. According to him, appellant has been allowed increments and G.P. Fund and Group Insurance are also being deducted from his salary like a permanent and regularized employee. In support, he relied upon the case of Water and Power Development Authority v. Abbas Ali Malana and others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1.
5. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.-G. Sindh has controverted the above contentions and supported the impugned judgment. He contended that the service of appellant were rightly terminated as he was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the post was filled by a departmental officer or until the availability of the post, whichever is earlier. He was selected against a vacant post of Assistant Director of Malik Munawar who had gone on ex Pakistan leave for two years. According to him, an ad hoc employee had no vested right to claim against the post on which he was appointed and cannot claim any preference over to her candidates selected on merits and regular basis.
6. Admittedly, appellant was offered the post of Assistant Director Labour (B-17) on ad hoc basis for six months vide letter No,Lab(1)1-16/82 (P) dated 22-10-1996. On 27-10-1996 appellant assumed the charge of the post of Assistant Director Labour in the Directorate of Labour, Sindh and completed the requisite training and thereafter started to perform his duties. On 1-12-1996 appellant applied for leave for seven days. Thereafter he further applied for leave through telegram on medical ground for another seven days with effect from 8-12-1996 to 14-12-1996. It is 'a fact that appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis on 27-10-1996 initially for a period of six months on the recommendation of the competent authority. However, his services were terminated on 2-12-1996 without assigning any reason and show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of personal hearing which orders were suspended by this Court and it was vide notification dated 16-7-1997 issued by respondent, his services were continued. It is an admitted fact that since from the date of appointment till today, appellant has remained in continuous service of respondent for a period of about ten years. Irrespective of above, appellant has placed on record Notification dated 2-5-1999 about the termination of service of Malik Munawar Ahmed Tahir Assistant Director effective from 22-9-1998 against whose leave vacancy, he was appointed. Since a clear vacancy existed on the termination of service of Malik Munawar Ahmed Tahir, as such, condition about the availability of post so specified in the appointment order, stood fulfilled, thus got a vested right to be appointed against the said vacancy. Irrespective of above, as per record, the appellant has been drawing regular pay in B-17 along with other allowances such as House Rent, Conveyance, Special Additional Allowance, Special Relief Allowance and Ad hoc Relief. His G.P. Fund, Group Insurance and Benevolent Fund are also being deducted from his salary regularly, the proof whereof has been provided by appellant. This Court in the case of Water and Power Development Authority v.
Abbas Ali Malana and others referred (supra) exactly dealt with the similar situation wherein respondents being ad hoc employees were appointed for six months initially and their services were terminated without assigning any reason. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the said judgment:-- 'In our opinion the case of respondents does not fall within any of the categories laid down by this Court in Human Rights Case as it is not the case of the petitioner that any of the respondents either lacked requisite qualifications or were appointed by incompetent authority. On the contrary the petitioner never organized the examination and finalized the respondents selection and their regularization till their final order of termination passed in 1998. It is also spelled out from the impugned judgment that the petitioner had been discriminated with other employees who were appointed in similar manner on ad hoc basis and were subsequently confirmed and regularized.
Non holding of examination/interview by the petitioner amounts to waiver and respondents should have been notified as confirmed. Irrespective of above, the respondents have served for 11 years and have thus accrued vested right of being regularized. The aspect where the authority was itself responsible for making irregular appointment on temporary basis. Subsequently turned down and terminated their services on the ground that the same was made in violation of the rules has not been appreciated by this Court particularly when the appointees fulfilled the requisite qualifications. In this context reference can be made to the cases of this Court reported as Secretary to Government N.-W.F:P. Zakat Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v.
Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 413) and Director Social Welfare N.-W.F.P. Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350)".
7. The case of appellant is identical on all four corners to that of the case referred supra, as such, he is entitled to the same relief. Since the date of appointment till today, the appellant has remained in regular service of the respondent and is being paid regular pay and allowances, so much so. G.P. Fund, Group Insurance and Benevolent Fund are also being deducted from his salary, thus becomes entitled to be regularized in services like permanent/regular employee.
8. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside with no order as to costs.