MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J. --- Lt. General (R) Naeem Khalid Lodhi hereinafter referred to as the petitioner was appointed as Secretary, Defence Division, Government of Pakistan on a two years contract, on standard terms and conditions, effective from 28.11.2011 vide Establishment Division Notification No. 10/05/2011-E-I, dated 24.11.2011. Pursuant thereto, he took charge of said post on 28.11.2011. The said appointment of the petitioner was terminated by the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division vide Notification No. 10/05/2011-E-I, Islamabad, the 1 1 th January, 2012, and Mrs. Nargis Sethi, a BPS-22 Officer of Secretariat Group, serving as Secretary Cabinet Division, was assigned the work of Secretary Defence Division in addition to her own duties vide Notification No. 41/340/2009-E-I, Islamabad, the 11th January, 2012. The termination order of the petitioner flashed in national and international print and electronic media terming the same as dismissal of the petitioner for gross misconduct. Such termination, without issuance of any charge- sheet/show-cause notice and holding inquiry, was felt by the petitioner as unwarranted stigma and ascribed the same as gross mala fide on the part of respondents.
2. The petitioner, in view of the afore-stated situation, was allegedly left with no option but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution, seeking redressal by pleading for restoration of his contract appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis against the post of Secretary Defence Division vide Notification dated 24th November, 2011 referred to above, for a period of two years with effect from 28.11.2011. That the term of contract appointment was to expire on 27.11.2013. That impugned Notification dated 1 1 th January, 2012, referred to above, was apparently an order of termination simpliciter but the same was not so as the national and international press and electronic media reported the said termination orders of the petitioner as a result gross misconduct". Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments referred to the news "appearing in Dawn Islamabad dated 12.1.2012, Express Tribune Islamabad dated 12.1.2012, CNN (Canada) dated IIth January, 2012, AFP (U.S.) dated 11th January, 2012, Aljazeera (Qatar) dated 11th January, 2012, BBC News (U.K.) dated 11th January, 2012, Christian Science {{BLUR PAGE}} Monitor (U.S.) ;dated 11th January; 2012, Financial,-Times-41.K.) dated 11th January, 2012, Gulf News (U.A.E.) dated 12th January; 2,012;iHindustan Times (India). Dated 11th January, 2012, Indian Express (India) dated 11th January, 2012, /41):7 (India) dated 11th January, 2012, New Yoif ',limes (U.S.) dated 11th January, 2012, New York Times (U.S.) Reuter: 'O'ilince) dated 11th January, 2012, Rediff (India) dated 11th' January, 2012, Telegraph (U.K.) dated 1 1th January, 2012, The Australian (Australia) dated.1211ulanuary, 2412, Voice of America (U.S.) dated ,11th January, 2012, Wall Street Journal (U.S.) dated 11th January, 2012, Washington Post (U:S.) dated lith January, 2012 and Zee News (India) dated 11th January, 2012. Learned counsel 1forthe petitioner also referred to press release of ISPR dated 11th January, 2014 wherein allegation of the.Prime Minister of Pakistan against COAS,and DO,> ISl were rebutted. Further argued that the afore-stated, material clearlyestablishes4he fact termination order of the petitioner was the stigmastOt zrossi: prOfessiortal-, misconduct.,That the said press statements and news of Electronic Media were not denied by the respondents and the same are to be taken into account That according to the standard terms, and conditions in respect of elitOnieni'ilft' contract basis, rulei made andAtiiiCtions issued by the'6O e "i'aiftPal prescribed authority for civil 'servant under Sections 15 and 6 Util' Servants Act, 1973, amended from time to time,, would . Apply to contract employees :- That :the respondents have ioffered cOmments,An ,Media reports in their replies furnished in Courtin responselo:-*nsSertion*levellecl by the petitioner in his Constitutional petition.- Thatthe said- comments are neither dated nor verified as retired under the law. That the termination order of the petitioner is liable to be S t aside as the same was, an order of termination of services of the petitionerwith stigma and allgations b gross msconuCt'an- e tssi d was passed without following the prescribed prOcedure of conducting inquiry. iitP3
4. . Learned counsel for the petitioner, during:the _course, of arguments,' has placed reliance on Article 10-A of.Constittnion-ticeoatlitigAtt which a person!, is entitled, to a fair trial and dueTrocessJWitJt refeleace,:to determination of his ,civil rights and obligstionsiornny crirninakohargeagainst him. He has also placed reliance co Sections.15 and 16.a Civil5Servants; Act, 1973 and.Clauses 12 and14 at, Serial' No, 26 of ESTA Codenecording to which if a contract employee is found liable to any disciplinary action.And penalties then he is to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed for a civil servant, thus, if services of a contract employee are terminated with stigma then provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the said Act would be applicable.
5. In case of admissibility and judicialnotioecft-Print and media: reports, reliance was also placed on case-law reported in-,PLD2,009-Supreme Court 879,,wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan invageof Sihdh High Court Bar. Association. v.. Federation of Pakistan observed that judicial notice of press reports could be taken by the Courts:- 5gi; where direct evidence was not available;{{BLUR PAGE}}
(ii) where it was sought to be proved that a person had notice of the contents of the newspaper reports;
(iii) "where it was sought to be shown that a person is an author or otherwise responsible for the statement or article published in a newspaper, which is to be used against him;
(iv) in cases of defamation; and
(v) if the issue/occurrence is rather old and eye-witnesses are either wanting or less reliable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on case of Pakistan Lawyers Forum v.
The Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 2011 Lahore 382), wherein it was observed that newspaper reports about events which are not rebutted are treated as reliable evidence.
7. View taken by the Lahore High Court in case of Pakistan Lawyers Forum v. Federation of Pakistan reported in PLD 2004 Lahore 130, was endorsed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its worthy judgment referred to above (PLD 2009 Supreme Courts 879).
8. In case of Watan Party and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others reported as PLD 2012 Supreme Court 292, the petition containing question of public importance with regard to enforcement of fundamental rights was maintained by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.
9. While questioning the validity of the no reason clause embodied in the standard terms and conditions of contract employment, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on case of Mst. Samina Kanwal v. Director Punjab Forestry Research Institute, Faisalabad reported as PLD 2011 Lahore 563, wherein it was observed that no reason clause was facially discriminatory and liable to be used as such and was therefore violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. It was further observed that the clause inserted in the terms and conditions of contract appointment "without assigning any reason" was also offensive to human dignity and reason beside unconstitutional.
Termination of the petitioner in the said case on the basis of the afore-stated no reason clause was set aside.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on case of Faisal Sultan v. EDO Education and others reported as 2011 PLC (C.S.) 419, wherein it was observed that removal of an employee from a public sector employment without due process would offend Article 9 of the Constitution as right to life would include right to a lawful and a meaningful livelihood. It was further observed that issuance of notice with reasons to petitioners was a minimum requirement of due process of law under Articles 4, 9, 14 and 18 of the Constitution.
11. Reliance was also placed on case of Shahid Farooq v. Water and Power Development Authority reported as 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1034 (Peshawar High Court) wherein it was observed that a temporary employee or a person employed on contract basis, was entitled to a fair opportunity of hearing under the terms of Efficiency and Discipline Rules before condemning him on the allegations of misconduct.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pressed into service case of Engineer Shaukat Hussain v.
Federation of Pakistan reported as 2011 PLC (C.S.) 174 (Lahore High Courts) wherein it was observed that termination of service of a contract employee on the allegation of misconduct, without regular inquiry, was unlawful and of no legal effect.
13. In case of the Secretary Government of the Punjab v. Riaz-ul- Haq reported as 1997 SCMR 1552, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was observed that where a person is to be condemned for misconduct then he is entitled to a fair opportunity to clear his position which means that there should be a regular inquiry in terms of Efficiency and Discipline Rules before condemning him for the alleged misconduct even if he is a temporary employee or a person employed on contract basis.
14. In case of Dr. Muhammad Amin v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government reported as 2012 PLC (C.S.) 462 High Court (AJ&K), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that the Constitutional petition in respect of contractual appointment was maintainable as it was more efficacious and speedy remedy as compared to a .Civil suit. It was further observed that the petitioner was to be heard before removal before expiry of contractual period.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on case-law reported in case of WAPDA through Chairman v. Zulfiqar A.I reported as 2002 PLC (C.S.) 128 Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein it was observed that pre-mature retirement in exercise of jurisdiction in a colourful manner and with mala fide intention would necessitate to extend right of hearing to the affected employee.
16. Reliance was also placed on case-law reported in 2002 SCMR 1034 in case of Abdul Hafeez Abbasi v. M.D. PIA and others, wherein it was ruled that maxim of 'Audi Alteram Partem' would apply in all judicial and non-judicial proceedings notwithstanding the fact that right of hearing had not been expressly provided by the statute governing the proceedings.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of maintaining the Constitutional petition has relied on the case of Dr. Akhtar Hussain Khan and others reported as 2012 SCMR 455 Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein it was observed that even the existence of an alternate remedy can not prevent the Court from exercising its power of judicial review if the said alternate remedy is neither efficacious nor expeditious. That if a statutory functionary acts mala fide {{BLUR PAGE}} or in a partial, unjust and oppressive spanner theAligkC9K09,Pfc,r4s,5.,Pf01 writ jurisdiction has power to grant re1jefgoithe aggriieyR4a4ymioar, r1C) ft. Learned DeiiiiiiittinitrOyerFhiQrartlYMPIAPieSenting 'the respondents has argued that the Constitutional petitiolaiiifictliefietitientr has become infructuous as - Yrs. L*etAti, as Acting Secretary Defence/Chairperson, con*** of Administratiort.9tA#P,KFoundation, vide Notification No. 16253/Secy/2011, dated 29th Mar; 2012 ,has issued. Appointment orders of die,:petitioner as Managing Director Fuji Fertilizer Company Limited with effectt.Fmn 26th Ivlarch4012 on contract basis for a period of three years which appointment has been accepted by the petitioner, That the petitioner was a'ietiiiiftriipioYee- and'Wg'appointed' on contract basis for a period. Of two yearSl3viiklitir3tittinimeilkvil4; until Thither orderWytkithl effect Tharediefigh set es drittelielitfoicer2:Were ter-n*11144OP witheiiitriiiindatoryt ribilee" oriiniiii666,113iiiie9611iitiar4hereof, onebnionth salary 'was offered tpthe'PetitioneiWIticli'he had aceepted ' and received. That the termination notifleitibh'rif the petitioner' was a termination order without any stigma and that thin iPiiiticlents denied t1fe press and"Elearonietriedia reports.
Thatieeceptance.Of one month, salary in lieu of nqticel subsequent appointment of the petitioner ..And denial of, respondents .Ininespeekof charges of any gross misconduct.Attributed,m the respondents, the, Constitutional petition would not be maintainable.,That a person! Terminated from, service ,with stigma cannot be considered,: for re-appointment while ..The,,:,spetitioner ,.11.a.s. Considered and appointed asiMI1 of FFC. That denial of F1FM wiielf5cPsirisrOports on *4011' of respondents would bring the case of the petitioner within tfutaRbit of fac401 controversy and in such eventuality, Constitutional petition would not be Competent. That the petitioner, alleging-his termitiiiti6iirfrorn service with stigma and seeking proteetion of 'Sections 151iiid 16 of he CiVit5SrVants Act, 1973; was then obliged tO'reSort to the' iiiiiwit'ebtion 22 of the said Act read' withitities 4 ands of CINA't SerVntifAPpeafttiii. 1977. That the news-items were' SOCtilatifiViii'datureTis accordifig to the' `said news-items, the' termination order of the petitioner was aimed at removal of and Chief ofArmy Staff. That.TheD.G.., IS1 has completed his tenuresq4kervice and COAS is holding the office And .Performing his fugctions,and,rertkpingAcices to_thei country. That the case-law cited by theleamed,cmutsel,for.
Tr* itcAiiihEAftfi was irrelevant to the case of petitioner,31144,4kqppt.r00 apptinmelltiAsAstli questionable in Constitutional jurisdiction elftniscOnl:trz,rti - :Learned; DAG,!:during tttq r-ourspokarguments, has placed reharro pp the case-law reported as PLD:2111:1!Sugerne-,cqurt 277, in Sup-Alatu Claf4Viski.24 ofi21)4G_and Human,-;Rights;- -.Ca*P01.1APNVW SuPrerfle,..Rccgt Pakistan has observed that-ftx,pstgblishing rtilglpfilwARSI.con4*ippOjsm it was necessary that the relevant provisions relati- n*5gmicffshouldheftAlowed, strictly in letter and spirit.,,h, was fun* PbP@E.Y.04.Fil vio4ti'on of relevant provisions of law, tantamounting to blocking the promotion of serving, officers and waiting for promotion, re- employment/contract appointment of {{BLUR PAGE}} {{BLUR PAGE}} retired officers was to be 'dflaiitiitieT-for 'the; ferPose of achieving goixt governance.
The august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the said case, issued directions to the Setretary,- Estabdalltrient Division atierehief Secretaries of the PiOineei`lo examine the cases'nfitkeinployrrierif- M teritiS efthe proiriainnsrof law 'and' to take necessary steps to ettilte that ire'jetnplOyttitntttfiftsefttpkcytttents on contract basis Were not madeihviblitton'itifithiqe1WritittlaW.Di)011?'iltrigin 201 Reliance WaPalsovpitited in "Sim Motu Case No Y24 of 2010 reported 8.2011 SCMR 582, othettlifilielaugust SupremeCOliiitifilakistan has ruled that appointmentS ittiitiatet7bit4iS are,ibt allowed-T:0;W dontinuedin terms of Section 14 of the Civil Sekints Act,4973- andvtlWpoliby::unless the ),condAtions specified therein are sati5fielci.
9 21. Reliance was also placed on FlittnairlighttasesNoA0071-P ite; repotted as' PL[) 2011'Stiprettie Court 205,----WheteltPthej august Supreme Court of Pakistan deprecated appointment on contrattrandit wt&obseriedAhat it was in interest of Government to promote junior 4fin waiting for promotions and. That they should be encouraged instead of,ewlstyitigpersRns oricontract basis unless their service,s,A.Isqe,indispensable. ,. I-wyksq
22. Reliante algtrIMaced on Deae NO Government of Baluchistan and other's v. Dr. ZahidkKakatiintitedthers reported as 2005fi8CivIR 642, wherein it was observed that contra& aPpointrnent:prinictfaeieldoesrnot create any vested right.
23. Learned DAG has also placed relfarice6n4i. Awe .Lof'Ainshal Khan v. Goverririti?leE&WFP and others reported as4999 PLC4CS.I 1x.155, Wherelhit was Alierved that a contract employeetannatifilefarwriepetitioritio seek redress in respect of a grievance relatingloVrefterrittland ainditionsfahis service:Reference in the said case alsoinide toftialeillitWireperted in PL11 t962 Supreme Court 108, 1984 CLC 2168 arid21981'MLDvi51314herein it Was ruledthat contractual rightsarenot enfqrceable by recounejtoserit jurisdiction and when suellfervie.q***T#Pc!lvY!Tth!'MORAV*,-: w5rP"'"' 514 - tikiiiiedTAG while trbsii14,1 ilwsnviinstatentbmcf boiitract service of the petitioneriAced reli I1ittgeitBikaVA/ROfitoniazimilf:iiiim Dar reported as 2004 PLC 69 (Lahore lligh tetiliP*Iiereiittiltiwaganbseriedthat neither unwilling mastec .Tcan,be forced to keep servant nto his service nor unwilling servant canibeifRrbed to serve.j,his master. It Waivfitctbetr;,observedlhat Courts cannot annul teppkiation of service, even if the satne he in Violation of contract and that remedynof servant in case of wrongful termination of his service would be to claim damages from master. It was also observed that where contract contains provisions for termination of service of servant then employer is not required to assign any reason therefor and that pre-mature termination without mentioning reason or in absence of reason- would not give cause of action to ilieservant to claim damages from employers excatittecctaitnisaia0) in .Lieu of notice period.. ;LA ni.Via'dw tiooi.Mq JC;"11;{{BLUR PAGE}}
25. Reliance was also placed on the case of Zaka Ullah Bajwa reported as 2004 PLC (C.S.) 332 (Lahore), wherein it was observed that contractual appointment, in terms of the contract, could be dispensed with one month's notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof.
26. In case of Syed Manzoor Hussain v. Tehsil Nazim and others reported as PLD 2010 Lahore 101, relied on by learned DAG, it was observed that direct recourse to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts could not be encouraged in presence of alternate remedy.
27. In cases of Saeed Ahmad Khan and others reported as PLD 1974 Supreme Court 151, relied on by the learned DAG for the respondents, it was observed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that burden to prove mala fides lies on person alleging it.
28. In case of BP Pakistan Exploration and Production Inc. Karachi v. Additional Commissioner & others reported as 2011 PTD 647 and Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs reported as 1999 SCMR 1881, relied on by the learned DAG, it was observed that where alternate remedy is available, Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked as the same was not meant to render alternate remedy redundant.
29. Learned DAG has also relied on Case of Bashir Ahmed v. Messrs Roots School Network through Administrator and others reported as 2011 SCMR 290, wherein it was observed that High Courts will not make factual determination or interfere in orders,passed by competent Courts vested with statutory powers in the exercise their functions, unless jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity such,eI arbitrariness etc. In the order assailed before the High Court was forthcothing.
30. In case of Federation of Pakistan and others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others reported as PLD 2009 Supreme Court 644, relied upon by the learned DAG, wherein it was observed that the Supreme Court could not enter into any factual controversy in proceedings arising out of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
31. In case of Muhammad Mahmood Bawani v. Deputy Collector Building Zone-B and others reported as 2007 SCMR 1209, relied upon by the learned DAG, it was observed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that Constitutional petition involving factual controversies would not be maintainable and that such petition is only meant for resolving and interpreting pure questions of law.
32. Learned DAG has also pressed into service case-law formulated in Major (Retd.) Abdul Salam's case reported as 2004 PLC (C.S.) 864 wherein contractual appointment of the petitioner was held not enforceable through Constitutional petition.
33. Reliance was also placed on case of Kh. Manzoor Qadir v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported as 2011 PLC (C.S.) 90, wherein it was observed that if an employer no more requires service of a contract employee, he could terminate such services on one month's notice and when such condition was specifically mentioned in the appointment order and the employee had not objected to the imposition of that conditions and had accepted the same then in such circumstances such an employee could not bring his grievance within the scope of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
34. Reliance was also placed on judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 2350 of 2011 (IHC), wherein it was observed that well-settled principle of law is that contract appointments could not be enforced through Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
35. Reliance was also placed on judgment of this Courts passed in I.C.A. No. 85 of 2011, wherein it was observed that question, as to whether version of appellants was correct or the one put forward by respondents, would be a controversy requiring evidence and such factual controversy could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction.
36. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and case- law referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments.
37. Undisputed facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner, a retired Lt. General, was appointed on contract basis as Secretary Defence Division on standard terms and conditions, for a period of two years with effect from 28.11.2011 and until further orders vide Notification dated Islamabad 24th November, 2011. The contents of the afore-stated Notification are reproduced below for facilitation and ready reference:--- Islamabad, the 24th November, 2011 NOTIFICATION Lt. General (Retd.) Naeem Khalid Lodhi HI (M) is appointed on contract as Secretary, Defence Division, on standard terms and conditions for a period of two years, with effect from 28.11.2011 and until further orders. -sd(Khial Zad Gul) Deputy Secretary to the Government of Pakistan (underline by me for emphasis)
38. The petitioner, on the strength of the said Notification of appointment on contract basis, assumed the charge of the said post on 28th {{BLUR PAGE}} .Nikaebberi 2014. Relevaatvortiotrof the said Notification is also 'reproduced iihertirtfor facilitation attdready reference:, 11()=11 ni5l3rfw Government'of-Pakistan )11O (10 .Z.:J:Ii'ri52. Rbue niErtim-tit blutK) eMtiv,' blOaliSt 311.1 nrIk;oilizep efiw ry of Qefence psS 1srlt' 3o nolmorimi it o1 byloji io tort burl t.)5yolgRawadpindi,rthea9th Ngeri,v42#11 ftfi f1:412 TIOR'" br-f' -'''''11141(Yj In pursuance of Establishment liivision's Notification No. 10/05/2011-E-I, dated 24.11.2011, Lt. Gen. (R) Naeem Khalid Lodhi riuoD has assumed the charge of the pose-of Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 28th November, 2011. This appointment'ls made on contract period Of `tWo years w.Ef 28.11.2011 and until )fiitther otders on Standard terms and conditions.
1.':--;"'6(1 1111137) i'sf-'361c1(121 (Ashiq Hussain Awan)
Iorfterlw .110i1eAli.) ILA/ li-m-le2rio 'mil nielt.,r1w tluow .4rmbrforfaol 94'o .10 at.Rii! Section Officer
39. ' 'The contract appointment of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect vide Notification dated Islamabad the 11th January, 2012 relevant part thereof is also reproduced herein.
For facilitation and ready reference. .,, '`Nlaniabecl, the Ilth January, 2012 5rlt NOTIFICATION The contract appointment of Lt. General (Retd.) Naeem 1Tf.',5J, 9.1111 IKhalid Lodi* III (M), as Segetary, Defence Division is terminated poix With tfiwi J3:1, ., fife) ff1 73f.i5Thou uriT . jACV,' boa Zad Id)
Deputy Secretary to the OE _I...Acts:A(014 11.1t.!.
Government of Pakistan
40. The petitiOnefhat not denied receipt of one month pay and 1,,,,,fresh appointment vide Notification 29th March, 2012. Relevant part of the said notification is also reproduced below for reference and facilitation:{{BLUR PAGE}} GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DEFENCE DIVISION) Appointment as Managing Director, Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited Secretary Defence and Chairperson Committee of Administration Fauji Foundation, by virtue of the powers vested in her is pleased to appoint PA-16253 Lt. General Naeem Khalid Lodhi, HI (M), (Retd.) as Managing Director Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited w.Ef. 26th March, 2012 on contract basis for a period of three years.
2. The pay and allowances and prerequisites etc. Will be as per existing policy.
3. The above orders will be placed before the. Committee of Administration Fauji Foundation for ratification in its next Nargis Sethi Secretary Defence/Chanyersons committee of Administration Fauji Foundation
41. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary Defence on contract basis on standard terms and conditions. Standard terms and conditions for 'appointment on contract basis have been provided under serial No. 26 of the ESTA Code wherein period of contract appointment is specified "not exceeding two years"
(underline for emphasis) from the date of assumption of charge. Termination of contract appointment, during the period of contract, is settled down subject to 30 days' notice on either side "or payment of basic pay in lieu thereof, without assigning any, reasoen(underline for emphasis).
The petitioner has received one month salary in lieu of the required notice and, the petitioner, while assuming the charge of the post, has accepted the terms of contract appointment including termination of his services without assigning any reasons as such the petitioner, employed on contract basis, facing termination order without assigning any reason but in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions, cannot invoke the extra-ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for overturning or upsetting the settled terms and conditions of his contract employment.
42. Perusal of notification of contract appointment of the petitioner reproduced at page 17 of the judgment would suggest that the contract appointment of the petitioner was, though, spread over a period of two years with effect from 2$,11.2011, however, the same was also restricted and limited to until further orders. Thus it can be safely inferred that standard terms and conditions referred to above, do not validate or permit contract appointment exceeding two years and the said terms and conditions validate and permit termination of such contract appointment without assigning any reason. On the touchstone of the said standard terms and conditions, it cannot be ivied that the contract appointment of the petitioner made for a period of two years and until further orders on standard terms and conditions, was not liable to termination on payment of one month salary in lieu of 30 days' notice.
43. It is not disputed that the petitioner, after his termination order referred to above, has received one month pay and has also joined assignment of Managing Director Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited on contract basis with effect from 26th March, 2012, for a period of three years. In such eventuality, the petitioner cannot be legally jiistified to seek restoration of his contractual appointment against the post of Secretary Defence terminated vide impugned order referred to above.
44. It is a well-settled principle that the Constitutional Courts, while exercising its power of judicial review, can take into account press and media reports but in the case in hand the said print and media reports are denied by the respondents as, according to learned DAG, the respondents had never accepted the said media reports to be true till date and that such statements were never issued by the respondents to any press or media persons.
45. Version of the petitioner, with reference to his termination with stigma, is based on press and media reports and the said version is denied by the respondents and, in such eventuality factual controversy would emerge which would require appreciation of evidence for the purpose of proof of facts alleged by one party and denied by the other. Factual controversy, requiring such settlement, would go out of the ambit of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as a person or party, through Constitutional petition, would not be entitled to seek determination of factual controversy and where only relief can be sought and granted on the basis of established and undisputed factual claims and assertions.
46. According to the standard terms and conditions of contract appointment, conduct and discipline of a contract employee is regulated by the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Thus, in the light of provisions of Section 15 of the said Act, the conduct of a contract employee is to be regulated by rules made or instructions issued by Government or prescribed authority and in case a contract employee is found liable to any disciplinary action and penalties then he is to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed for a civil servant under the said Act. Since the contract employment of the petitioner has not been terminated for disciplinary action as such the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the said Act would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.
47. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Human Right Cases, referred to above, has deprecated contract appointments and had issued directions to the concerned Governments to examine such cases and terminate appointments made violative of service laws. The case in hand is not however the one which was terminated in the light of the directions of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The concerned Governments are yet to take steps for introducing good governance in the service hierarchy by abstaining themselves from appointments violative of service laws or dispensing with such illegal appointments.
48. In the light of the above, 1 hold that the contract appointment of the petitioner was liable to termination on 30 days' notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof and without assigning any reason for such termination and that the impugned notification of termination dated 1 I th January.
2012 was in consonance with standard terms and conditions of the contract appointment of the petitioner and that due to factual controversy involved therein the same cannot be interfered with by this Courts in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
49. For the above-mentioned reasons, I see no force in the instant Constitutional petition. I would therefore dismiss the same, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. .