1. ' Through the instant Intra Court Appeal the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 09.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No,24435/2015 by the learned Single Judge as well as orders dated 29.04.2015 and 29.06.2015 passed by the Respondents Nos.1 and 2. The Appellant has also sought a direction to the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 for extension in his contract period.
2. Brief facts revealing from the instant Appeal are that the Appellant was appointed as Veterinary Officer (H) through Punjab Public Service Commission on contract basis on 22.11.2007. However, the service of the Appellant was terminated vide order dated 28.06.2008 due to his absence w,e,f, 31.05.2008 but later on the termination letter was rescinded on 27.01.2009 and his absence period was converted into leave without pay. The Responded No,4 sent recommendations for extension of contract period of the Appellant vide letters dated 05.05.2009, 17.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 but the matter was kept pending by the Respondents Nos .2 and 3. The Appellant also sent written requests in this regard but ultimately the contract of the other colleagues of the Appellant was extended but the Appellant's request was declined on 10.02.2012. The Appellant assailed the said order before this Court which directed the Respondent No,2 to pass a speaking order after affording opportunity of proper hearing to the Appellant who dismissed the application of the Appellant vide order dated 29.04.2015 against which the appellant filed representation before the Respondent No,1 which also met to the same fate. Feeling aggrieved thereby the Appellant filed W.P. No, 24435/2015 which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.10.2015. Hence, the instant Appeal.
2. 3.Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the learned Single Judge in Chamber in the impugned judgment has not appreciated the fact of discrimination as the contract period of the other colleagues of the Appellant has been extended while the Appellant has been deprived of the same. Learned counsel also argued that despite order of this Court the Respondent No,2 has not given him proper hearing, as such he has been condemned unheard on the basis of mala fide.
3. Learned counsel also contended that the learned Single Judge has not applied its judicious mind and solely rely on the comments submitted on behalf of the Respondents, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further pointed out that the fact of absence of the Appellant has been made basis in the impugned order but the Respondents had badly failed to prove the same. Learned counsel also laid much stress on the point that the Respondents have never ever sought any explanation regarding the absence of the Appellant.
4. 4.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and learned AAG who supported the impugned orders and examined the record available with this Appeal.
5. 5.The main grievance of the Appellant is that his contract period be extended. The Appellant was appointed on purely contract basis in the Respondents/Department vide appointment letter dated 22.11.2007. The Appellant after accepting the terms and conditions of his contract employment submitted his joining report. Clause-7 of the employment contract, containing certain terms and conditions, explicitly reveals that the services of the Petitioner can be terminated without assigning any reason, hence the Appellant has no right to claim extension in his contract period as a vested right. Moreover, allegedly the behavior of the Appellant remained unsatisfactory toward his superiors which resulted into his termination.
6. 6.It is an established principle that where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of master and servant and in such like cases the Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable. In case titled Lt. Col. Rid. Aamir Rauf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Defence and 3 others (2011 PLC (C. S.) 654), it has been held that if an employee working on contract basis is aggrieved of his termination the only remedy available was an action for damages and no direction could be issued to force the unwilling employer to keep the Appellant in service. Similar principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Nadeem Ahmed v. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited and another (2005 PLC (C.S.)
7. 1447). In view of the settled principle, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Appellant has no vested right on the basis of C which he was entitled to relief in a Constitutional petition by holding in paragraph 6 which reads as follows: <i>"Perusal of the above observations indicates that the Petitioner has started his private business at Sheikhupra and is continuously engaged in the private business. Even otherwise the above findings/ record also clearly establish that he is a habitual absentee. Learned counsel for the Petitioner could not satisfactorily rebut the above factual position. The case of the Petitioner, on the face of it, is distinguishable from his other colleagues. Question of mala fide and discriminatory treatment was not made out in the circumstances. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek shelter behind the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. "</i> 7.We see no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order' which has been passed by the learned Single Judge in consonance with D the spirit of law, as such does not warrant any interference by us.
8. 8.In view of above, the instant Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.