' TARIQ JAVAID, J.--- This writ petition is directed against order dated 31-8-2007 issued by respondent No,2 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No,
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no charge sheet or show cause notice was served on the petitioner before passing order of termination; that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in summary manner and the contention raised by the petitioner were not considered; that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 acted with mala fide and the respondent No,1 passed order in hasty manner with complete disregard to the judgments passed by the Superior Courts; therefore, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement.
2. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer maintained that the petitioner was a contract employee and under the terms of contract for employment her services could lawfully be terminated on one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. Under the terms and conditions of service the petitioner was terminated on payment of one month's salary, therefore, the petitioner has no cause of action.
3. It appears that no notice or charge sheet was served on the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was contract employee. However, contract employee has also a right to be dealt with in accordance with law. The provisions of PIDA Act could not be dispensed with by adopting a device of employment on contract basis so as to deprive the government servants from their legal rights and security of tenure. Even if an employee is serving the Government on contract he cannot be terminated with complete disregard to the rules and protection provided under the law to the Government servant. The impugned order dated 5-7-2008 also reveals that her services were terminated on recommendation of DCO on the charge of misconduct and poor performance. If such was the case then the petitioner had a right to be dealt with in accordance with law, If her services were terminated on the alleged ground of misconduct and poor performance then a proper inquiry out to have been conducted; therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is re-instated in service. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the back-benefits and the respondents shall be at liberty to adopt proper course of action if they intend to proceed against the petitioner and terminate her services. With above direction this petition is disposed of with no order for costs.