Through this Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (the "Ordinance "), the Appellant has challenged die validity of impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.68293 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge (the "Impugned Order ") whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned order is against law and facts; that the impugned order is the result of mis-reading and non-reading of record; that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondents have dismissed the Appellant on the basis of bogus and fake report; that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the Appellant before his termination which offends Article 10-A of the Constitution as such the same is liable to be set aside. He has relied on "Muhammad Riaz v. Medical Superintendent, Service Hospital, Lahore and 2 others" (2016 PLC (C.S.) 296), "Jahanzaib Khan Niazi v.
Government of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation, Lahore and 8 others" (2016 PLC (C.S.) 1039 ), "Aamir Junaid and 143 others v. Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and 5 others" (2014 PLC (C.S.) 1 and "Dr. Sitara Abdul Rehman v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Health, Lahore and 3 others" (2012 PLC (C.S.) 1203 ).
3. Learned Law Officer vehemently conte sted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the Appellant was a contract employee whose contract was rightly terminated under Clause-18 of the Letter of Appointment as such there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order .
4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have perused the record.
5. The main grievance, of the Appellant is that he was terminated from job without adopting proper procedure and affording an opportunity of hearing. It evinces from record that the Appellant was appointed on purely contract basis in the Respondents/Department vide appointment letter dated 28.02.2012. The Appellant after accepting the terms and conditions of his contract employment submitted his joining report. Specific terms in the employment contract, containing certain terms and conditions, are inserted which explicitly reveal that initially this offer of appointment is only for a period of One Year however , period of contract was extended from time to time. Clause 18 of the Letter of Appointment reads as under: "Your contract will be liable to be terminated on one month's notice or on deposit of one month pay in lieu thereof, on either side, without assigning any reason. Your contract will also be liable to be terminated without any notice on administrative ground or on account of poor performance/undesirable conduct or unauthorized/wilful absence from duty."
6. So far as stance of the Appellant regarding violation of Article 10-A of the Constit ution is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that order dated 22.06.2019 challenged in constitutional petition was passed pursuant to directions given in W.P.No.212480 of 2018 dated 16.05.2018. Perusal of order dated 22.06.2019 reveals that the Appellant was afforded an opportunity of hearings on 22.04.2019 and 13.06.2019 at 10:00 A.M. in the office of Deputy Commissioner/Chairman District Health Authority , Lahore hence; this stance of the Appellant is not tenable.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant was terminated without issuing any show-cause notice or conducting regular inquiry . The learned Single Judge in paragraph No.2 of the impugned order observed as under: "He was served with show-cause notice dated 22.08.2016 on the allegation that he remained absent from duty from 06.06.2016 to 12.08.2016. The Petiti oner did not file any reply to the show-cause notice whereafter the District Health Officer through order dated 25.01.2017 terminated the contract of service of the Petitioner".
8. It is the argument of learned counsel that the Respondents have terminated the Appellant on the basis of a bogus and fake report. In this regard, learned Single Judge observed as follows: "The record does not support the version of the Petitioner in as much as the attend ance register does not show his presence from 06.06.2016 onward. Be that as it may, the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order also stated that the Petitioner went abroad without seeking permission. When confronted, the learned counsel conceded that the Petitioner went abroad during the period in question for visiting the holy sites. It was stated that the Petitioner sought oral permission from his superior which was granted. Needless to state that the explanation furnished by learned counsel is without any merit. The Petitioner being a Government Servant was required to obtained ex- Pakistan leave. Be that as it may, this Court is satisfied that service contract of the Petitioner was rightly terminated by the Respondent".
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention towards The Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 (the "Act") and case law, referred above. Needless to add that case of the Appellant does not fall within the ambit of Sections 2(c) and 4 of the Act. Section 2(c) clearly states that "contract employee" means an eligible person appointed on contract in a department immediately before the commencement of the Act but does not include a person appointed to a post in a project, programme, project management unit, project management office, time bound (one-time) development activity or as work-charged employee or an employee on daily wages". Offer of Appointment letter depicts that the Appellant was appointed on contract basis under Prevention and Control of Dengu e Program. Whereas Section 4 prescrib ed procedure for regularization which clearly demonstrates that "the case of a contract employee appointed on the recommendations of the Commission shall be submitted to the appointing authority for regularization without reference to the Commission or the Scrutiny Committee".
10. 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 Constituti on is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard can be placed on "Lt. Col. Rtd. Aamir Rauf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 3 others" (2011 PLC (C.S.) 654) and "Nadeem Ahmed v. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited and another" (2005 PLC (C.S.) 1447).
11. In view of above, we see no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge in consonance with the spirit of law, as such does not warrant any interference by us.
Consequently , the instant Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine .