KH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J. This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Writ Petition No.495/2024, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, herein, has been dismissed in limine.
The facts forming the background of the captioned petition for leave to appeal are that the petitioner, herein, was appointed as Technical Expert Revenue (B-18); in the department of Ehtesab Bureau on contract basis on the recommendations of Selection Committee for a period of one year, vide notification dated 13.11.2020. Later on, through notification dated 22.10.2021, the contract appointment of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year w.e.f. 13.11.2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.08.2022, the contract of the petitioner was again extended for a period of two years w.e.f. 13.11.2022 to 12.11.2024. Subsequently, he was removed from his office vide order dated 29.02.2024 before completion of his contract period. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, challenged the legality of the said order by way of writ petition before the High Court on 01.03.2024. The learned High Court, after necessary proceedings, dismissed the writ petition in limine through the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2024, hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner after narration of necessary facts, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Expert Revenue (B-18) Ehtesab Bureau on the recommendations of Selection Committee on contract basis for a period of one year, vide notification dated 13.11.2020. Thereafter, the contract appointment of the petitioner was extended on the basis of his performance for one year, vide notification dated 22.10.2021. Later on, the contract appointment was again extended for a period of two years w.e.f. 13.11.2022 to 12.11.20h4 through order dated 31.08.2022, but the petitioner, herein, has been removed from his service before completion of his tenure vide order dated 29.02.2024, without ascribing any reason or issuing any show-cause notice to him seeking his explanation. He alleged that the learned High Court has not considered these important aspects of the case and illegally dismissed the writ petition in limine. He added that important legal question of public importance is involved in this petition, hence, grant of leave is justified. The learned Advocate referred to and relied upon the case law reported as (2010 SCR 208 and 264) in support of his version.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Hanif Ch., the learned Chief Prosecutor Ehtesab Bureau while controverting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was holding a contractual post on the pleasure of the authority and this condition is also incorporated in the appointment notification of the petitioner as condition No.3, that the competent authority may remove him from service at any time on the basis of his unsatisfactory performance.
He submitted that although his appointment was extended for a period of two years through order dated 31.11.2022, however, the authority has got powers to terminate his service before expiry of the said period without issuing any notice to him. The petitioner was relieved of his office after paying one month salary according to the contractual policy, vide order dated 29.02.2024, hence, the petitioner has got no locus standi to challenge the said order. The judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal which is in accordance with law, calling for no interference. He lastly prayed for dismissal of petition for leave to appeal.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned Advocate the petitioner, herein, was initially appointed as Technical Expert Revenue (B-18) Ehtesab Bureau, on the recommendations of Selection Committee for a period of one year vide notification dated 13.11.2020. Later on, his contract appointment was extended for one year, vide notification dated 22.10.2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.11.2022, the contract appointment was further extended for a period of two years w.e.f.
13.11.2022 to 12.11.2024. Admittedly, the contract appointment of the petitioner was made under clause IV (iii) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contract Appointment Policy, 2006. For better appreciation, the said clause is reproduced as under:- "(ii) ...........
"(ii) ...........
"(iii) In all contracts it shall be clearly provided that the services of the contract employee are liable to be terminated on one month's notice or on month's pay in lieu thereof, on either side without assigning any reasons.'
"(iv).....
(v)........"
According to the clause (supra), the service of a contract employee can be terminated on one month's notice or on month's pay in lieu thereof, on either side without assigning any reason. This view finds support from a case reported as Kh. Manzoor Qadir v. Azad Government and 5 others"
(2011 PLC (C.S.) 90) wherein, it has been observed by this Court as under:- "11 .........The assertion of the appellant that he has been appointed under the Government notification, therefore, his services cannot be terminated, is also devoid of any force, as it has already been recorded that his appointment was on contract and his services are liable to be terminated on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof."
Thus, as the petitioner was a temporary/contractal employee in the department as mentioned in his appointment notification whose service can be terminated at any time by the competent authority in the light of the said contractual policy. In the instant case, the authority removed him after paying one month's salary which is in accordance with the contractual policy, therefore, in view of the above reasoning, he cannot be restored in his service. Thus, it can safely be held that the learned Judge in the High Court has not committed any illegality while dismissing the writ petition in limine. No question of law and public importance is involved in this petition which is a pre-requisite for grant of leave. Leave cannot be granted in routine just to create a false hope in the mind of a litigant; hence, the same is refused.
6. The case law referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate representing the petitioner, having distinguishable fact, is not applicable to the case in hand, hence, need not to be discussed.
In view of the above, finding no force in this petition, leave is refused. Consequently, as the leave has been refused, therefore, the application for interim relief also stands consigned to record. No order as to costs.