Preliminary arguments on the question of maintainability of the instant appeal have been heard at some length and record perused. The appellant Faisal Abbas was appointed as Team Head in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Liquidation Board on 10.06.2014 copy of his appointment letter is reproduced for ready reference: "ORDER Mr. Faisal Abbas S/o Ghulam Abbas R/o Chak No. 134/SB Sillanwali, Sargodha is hereby appointed as Team Head Sargodha in the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation on consolidated salary of Rs. 30,0001- (Thirty Thousand) per month inclusive of all allowances on purely temporary basis liable to be terminated without any notice/ reason."
Learned counsel for the respondents had raised preliminary objection on 13.12.2 016 regarding maintainability of the appeal before this Tribunal on the question as to whether appellant is civil servant or not
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred Section 8 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, 1993 to show that Chairman and all the employees of the said Board shall be deemed to be public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of Pakistan Penal Code. He further contended that appellant is fully covered within the definition of public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of Pakistan Penal Code and thus for all the purposes he is a civil servant. He further added that previously the appellant preferred a Writ Petition No. 30076/2015 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and learned counsel for the respondents. raised a plea before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore that matter of the appellant was also sub-judice before the Punjab Service Tribunal, therefore, Writ could not be filed and the same was accordingly disposed off vide order dated 17.05.2016. He contended that the respondents are taking contradictory pleas before different forums just to deprive the appellant from availing any legal remedy for redressal of his grievances who was illegally terminated by the Respondents.
3. Learned District Attorney assisted by learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that there is a visible difference and distinction between a publi c servant and a civil servant. They have referred Section 2 sub-section (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and appellant is not a civil servant by any stretch of imagination.
4. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 2 Sub-Section (b) of the said Act for convenience and to comprehend the controversy ef fectively:- "(b) "Civil Servant" means a person who is or who has been member of a civil service of the Province or who holds or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province but does not include:--
(i) A person who is or who has been on deputation to the Province from the Federation or any other Province or authority;
(ii) A person who is or has been employed on contract, or on work-charged basis, or who is or has been paid from contingencies; or
(iii) A person who is or has been a "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923);
5. Learned counsel for the Respondents further added that the appellant was recruited on contract basis purely on temporary basis which is quite visible from his appointment letter referred above , therefore, even otherwise he cannot file this appeal being an employee of contract in view of the Clause (ii) of Sub Section 2(b) referred above.
6. When confronted with the aforement ioned situation to the appellant present before this Court he candidly admitted that he was an employee of contract basis and was not regular employee of the Respondents. Even the said appointment letter reproduced above manifestly demonstrates that appointment of the appellant was on temporary basis, thus, his case squarely falls within mischief of Section 2(b) Sub-Clause (ii).
7. The question of definition of civil servant is also involved in this controversy and learned counsel for the appellant has given much stress upon the definition of public servant as given in Section 8 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, 1993 but there is a visible distinction between a public servant as covered Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code as well as Section 8 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, 1993 and the definition of civil servant given in Section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Needless to point out here that the term 'public' servant' as defined in Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code is quite a vast as compared to civil servant defined in Section2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. Every civil servant may be a public servant but every public serva nt may not be a civil servant as per definition in the said Act. Civil servant is regulated by certain terms and conditions of service as provided under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 whereas public servant for the time being may be Headman or Municipal Head etc. keeping in view the duties assigned to them. The provisions of Section 8 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, 1993 only confined to scope of public servant for the employees in the said cooperative society whereas the employee of the said society are not governed under the Civil Servant Act and thus they cannot be considered as civil servant as defined in Section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
8. Keeping in view the definition of civil servant given in the Section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 the appellant does not fall within the category of civil servant, therefore, objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents has substance.
9. At this stage, I would like to deal with the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant regarding certain statements of learned counsel for the Respondent. before Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in the aforementioned Writ Petition but para No. 2 of order dated 17.05.2016 clearly shows that even learned counsel for the appellant submitted before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore that Respondents. have challenged the jurisdiction of Punjab Service Tribunal to adjudicate upon this matter even prior to filing of this Writ Petition as the appeal of the appellant had been filed prior to the filing of said writ petition, therefo re, no bonus can be given to the appellant for any such statement when the appellant himself was admitting before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court that respondent had raised objection of jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the appeal is not maint ainable before this forum on two grounds. Firstly , the appellant is not a civil servant within the definition of Section 2(b) of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 and secondly , he was employed on purely temporary basis, therefore, he could not file appeal even under Section 2(b) of the said Act before this Tribunal. Hence, the instant appeal is dismissed in limine .