The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis for one year against a permanent post of sub- engineer vide letter dated 20.6.1996_ The Respondent No, 1 vide joint order dated 11.8.1996 terminated services of petitioner. The said termination order was conveyed to the petitioner on 30.6.1996. The Respondent No, 1 aide letter dated 30.4.1997 on the petitioner's representation sought explanation from Chief Engineer (south) Punjab Highway Department Lahore. With reference to letter dated 12.4.1997 the Chief Engineer opined that petitioner is one of those employees who filed writ petition against his joint termination orders. However Chief Engineer opined as the petitioner's period of contract has elapsed and on 18.6.1997 his services stands automatically came into an end. Respondent No, 3 also challenged joint order through writ petition and vide letter dated 31.3.2010 Respondent No, 3 was reinstated in terms of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as is held in Ikram Bari and 524 others V. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2005 SCMR 100). The petitioner asserts that he worked against a permanent post as Sub Engineer for 09 months and in terms of Ikram Bari and 524 others V. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2005 SCMR 100), Govt. of Punjab etc. V. Sameena Parveen and others (2009 SCMR 1) and Saddaqat Ali Khan through L.Rs and others V. Collector land. Acquisition and others (PLD 2010 S.C. 878) he become entitled to be confirmed on his post. He further asserts that petitioner's service could not be terminated unless a regular appointment is made against the post and relied on Azhar Ahmed Khan V. Chief Secretary Government of Punjab, Lahore and 12 others (2010 PLC (CS) 374). He submits that benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan may also be given to him as the said joint termination order was finally laid to rest in Civil Appeal No, 398/2006.
2. Notices were issued to respondents who submitted their report and parawise comments and claimed that petitioner was appointed as Sub Engineer (Civil) purely temporary on adhoc basis for a period of one year in BPS 11. Subsequently in compliance of orders of Chief Minister, Punjab, vide Letter No, CO(RR) MS/CT-4-96-23508 dated 11.8.1996 the appointment orders of adhoc appointees including the petitioner were set aside with immediate effect vide letter dated 30.9.1996. However, they claim that in terms of order dated 28.4.1999 the petitioner was not considered for reappointment as he was overage by 08 years, 08 months and 02 days.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner continued to agitate for his rights before Court of Law and finally joint termination order was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and as such no question of his overage arose.
4. It is an admitted fact between the parties that petitioner was an adhoc employee and his services were terminated before the expiry of his contract. He along with others challenged joint orders of termination and vide Letter No, 24-EI dated 30.4.1997 the Superintendent Engineer Highway Circle Multan informed the Chief Engineer (south) Punjab Highway Department clarifying as under:-- "The Writs filed are still subjudice in the Lahore High Court Multan Bench Multan. Eight Nos employees as per Annexure "B" are still on the jobs as expiry of the adhoc appointment Orders issued lastly made on 1.8.1996 will lapse on 31.7.1997.
Beside above, it is also apprised that "No objection Certificate" for filling up the posts through regular procedure has also been sought for vide this Office Letter No, 24-E/574/EI dated 01.03.1997 and that in response to the advertisement of the posts in national dailies, applications against the different categories have also been received whose further processing is suspended for want of N.O.C/recruitment policy instructions.
Secretary to Government of the Punjab Communication and Wqrks Department, Lahore memo. No, SOE-III(C&W)5- 1/97, dated 12.04.1997 received as enclosures with your memo. quoted under reference directs "Withhold termination of all employees till a policy decision is taken".
Kindly advise if the Govt.'s "directions quoted above are applicable in the situation spelled out in preceding para 2 i.e the employees are to be called back and re-employed who on completion of their one year adhoc appointment are not in Service now, and if so fresh Orders on adhoc are required to be issued and that for how much period?
It is submitted that this office made appointments on adhoc basis for a period of one year of the following categories:-- {{TABLE}}
1. Sub Engineers. 7 Nos5. Fitter grade-LI. 1 No,
2. Highway Inspectors. 3 Nos6. Store Keeper. 1 No,
3. Junior-Clerks. 2 Nos7. Tubewell operator. 1 No,
4. Truck Driver. 1 No 8. Office Chowkidar . 1 No, {{TABLE}}
5. Perusal of said letter shows that termination orders of petitioner and others were withheld by the Superintendent Engineer vide letter dated 30.4.1997 which is read as under:-- "Secretary to Government of Punjab Communication and Words Department, Lahore memo. No, SOE-III(C&W)5-1/97 dated 12.3.1997 received as enclosures with your memo. quoted under reference directs --------" withhold termination of all employees till a policy decision is taken."
6. Learned Assistant Advocate General on instructions submits that no policy decision has been taken so far and matter is pending disposal on one reason or the other with the competent authority. There is no denial on the part of respondent that petitioner's name is included in those persons who were appointed on adhoc basis for one year. Petitioner services were terminated vide letter dated 11.8.1996 and according to Letter dated 30.4.1997 his termination was withheld till policy decision is made. Joint termination letter was assailed through writ petition which was ultimately went up to Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 18.1.2010 dismissed the appeal of respondents and the persons who assailed the said termination order were reinstated as is evident from Annexure-D available on record.
Petitioner's case is on better footing than other persons as respondent himself withheld termination orders of petitioner till the time of policy decision. Admittedly no decision has been taken so far and as such petitioner's termination letter become ineffective and he is still in service of the respondents and his termination will be subject to policy decision.
7. In view of above the petition succeeds. Order accordingly.