Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as ESE on contract basis in Government Girls Elementary School Koreki, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot on 16.11.2003, where after she gave joining report on 24.11.2003 and started her teaching career. The appointment order dated 16.11.2003 was duly verified by the District Education Officer, Sialkot on 16.10.2006.
2. That without notice to the petitioner, the contract of employment of the petitioner was withdrawn/cancelled vide order dated 23.06.2007 of the District Education Officer (W-EE) Sialkot (Respondent No, 2). Counsel submits that the said withdrawal was based on inquiry conducted against one Tehzeeb Fatima. The said inquiry was finally concluded and Tehzeeb Fatima was exonerated vide order dated 11.03.2008 passed by the Secretary, Education Government of the Punjab. As a consequence the departmental appeal of the petitioner was also allowed and petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 19.04.2008 passed by Respondent No, 1 thereafter, the petitioner once again resumed the responsibility as ESE and started work. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before Respondents No, 1 & 2 regarding the release of her salary and vide letter dated 16.10.2009 of Respondent No, 1 and 1.10.2009 of Respondent No, 2, directions were given that salary of the petitioner be disbursed to her. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was working at Government Girls Elementary School Koreki, Tehsil Daska, made an application for transfer to Government Girls Primary School Mallheki Daska which was also allowed vide transfer order dated 23.10.2009. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been continuously working since 2007 but her salary is not being paid to her. He contends that there are no departmental proceedings against the petitioner but she is being deprived of her salary. He relied on Administrator, District Council, Larkana and another us. Ghulab Khan and 5 others (2001 SCMR 1320), Qazi Akhtar Ali us. Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing) Punjab Agriculture House Lahore and another (2000 PLC (C.S.) 784), and Sughran Begum vs. Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore and others (1996 CLC 472) to submit that salary cannot be withheld at any stage.
3. Learned. Law Officer referred to the Contract Appointment Policy for the year 2004 and highlighted Clauses IV (iii), VI (vii) and XIV(i, iii, ix), Clause XVII to show that the appointment of the petitioner is contractual in nature. He took pains to explain that appointment of ESE against Government Girls Elementary School Koreki, Tehsil Daska is bogus because as per public advertisement dated 25.09.2003 no such post was advertised. He also referred to Agha Salim Khurshid vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (1998 SCMR 1930) to submit that a contract employee has no vested right and can be terminated without notice:
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner was appointed as an ESE on 16.11.2003 and joined the service on 24.11.2003. The said order of appointment was verified by Respondent No, 2 on 16.10.2006. During her employment her contract was cancelled on 23.06.2007 but she was reinstated in service and the said contract/employment was restored vide order dated 19.04.2008 which was effective from 23.06.2007. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously working as is evident from letter dated.
16.10.2009 whereby Respondent No, 1 directed the Deputy District Education Officer (W), Daska to release the salary of the petitioner. Similarly, letter- dated 01.10.2009 issued by Respondent No, 2 recommending that salary of the petitioner be disbursed and finally transfer letter dated 23.10.2009 issued by Respondent No,
1. These letters have not been denied or controverted by the respondents who are present in the Court, therefore, there is little doubt that the petitioner is working with the respondents Department as an ESE.
6. The argument on behalf of the respondents that the appointment as well as departmental appeal of the petitioner is bogus and based on fraud is preposterous and does not stand to reason. If this was the case, what was holding the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under the law. When the Law Officer was questioned if there are any departmental proceedings pending against, the petitioner, the answer was a categorical "No".
In the absence of any departmental proceedings or any other adverse order passed against the petitioner, there is, no justification whatsoeyer, for withholding the salary of the petitioner since May, 2007. It is also noted that the decision in departmental appeal in savour of the petitioner has not been challenged by the respondents before any higher forum and has attained finality. Reliance by the Law Officer on Agha Salim Khurshid vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. (1998 SCMR 1930) is misplaced as this case does not pertain to withholding of salary. Even otherwise, the said precedent does not hold that a contract employee can be terminated without notice. It simply holds that a contract employee can be terminated strictly in accordance with the terms of his contract.
7. The conduct of Respondents No, 1 and 2 has left the Court disturbed. It appears that the respondents are settling some personal score with the petitioner by withholding her salary.
Favoritism, partiality, preferential treatment, personal likes and dislikes have no place in the administration and governance of public institutions. Such elements breed inequality, unfairness, bias and discrimination which weaken institutions. Every step taken by public functionaries in running and managing public institutions must be strictly in accordance with law. Public institutions and public functionaries manning such institutions must make Article 4 of the Constitution to be their golden rule of governance. Once respect for rule of law takes root in institutions, they are bound to progress and be reckoned as building blocks in the national development.
8. The petitioner has been continuously working and above referred letters establish the same.
Withholding salary of the petitioner since May, 2007 is totally without lawful authority. This is also a violation of Article 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as the petitioner has been exploited over these years and made to work without salary.
9. It is clear that salary is the lifeline of an employee and cannot be withheld unlawfully. Salary is therefore integral part and parcel of livelihood of any employee and therefore an integral part of right to life. This Court in W.P. No, 5062/2009 held:- Right to life also includes right to livelihood. Without protection of livelihood and job security professional life is sapped of passion and desire to work which is essential for progress and development. No employment that borders on fear and favour can reap results. Livelihood provides the economic means required to lead a healthy and a regular life. Right to livelihood or right to security bf tenure therefore are integral, innate and inbred in a professional career of a public sector employee. Livelihood cannot be deprived unless convincing material is placed on the record that supports a larger public interest of taking such an action. Without the presence and existence of a larger public interest the petitioner cannot be deprived of his fundamental right. In this case the impugned order fails to disclose any reason. Reliance is placed upon re. Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others (AIR 1986 SC 180) re. M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others (1986) 2 SCC 176); re. State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan (AIR 1983 SC 803), re. Air India Statutory Corporation, and others v. United Labour Union and others (AIR 1997 SC 645), CJP CASE re. Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Justice Iflikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. The President of Pakistan through the Secretary and others (C.P. 21/2007), re. Government of Balochistan through Additional Chief Secretary v. Azizullah Memon and 16 others (PLD 1993 SC 341), re. Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1986 SC 1445) and re. Ms. Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC .693).
10. Withholding of salary without any lawful reasons offends Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which cannot be permitted. Respondents are directed to immediately release salary of the petitioner from May, 2007 to date within a fortnight from today:
11. District Co-ordination Officer, Sialkot is directed to initiate departmental inquiry against Respondents No, 1 and 2 to ascertain why salary of the petitioner was not paid since May, 2007. The inquiry report along with action taken against Respondents No, 1 and 2 will be placed before this Court through the Registrar within a period of three months from today.
12. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed.