MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--Khair Muhammad Ex-Patwari of Settlement Operation has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act,1974 in which he has impleaded Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Kot Adu Sub-Division and Commissioner D.G. Khan as respondents.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 19-9-1984 of the Assistant Commissioner, Kot Adu (Respondent No.1 and the impugned order dated 4-10-1984 of the Commissioner, D.G.Khan (Respondent No. 2) may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in the service with back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Kot Adu Sub-Division was subjected to Settlement Operation from 1972 to 31-5-1983. Some Patwaris were recruited on purely temporary basis to complete Settlement Operation. The Settlement Officer Thai, Layyah made appointments against newly created posts and before the winding up of the Settlement Department enlisted the names of those Patwaris who were found efficient and eligible, while the services of other 17 Patwaris were rendered surplus and as such, dispensed with. Aggrieved by the order 17 Patwaris filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, D.G. Khan who remanded the case for fresh decision. A committee consisting of the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector (Respondent No.1), Extra Assistant Commissioner, Kot Adu and Tehsildar, Kot Adu was constituted to determine the suitability and eligibility of the appellants for their retention in the service. The appellants were heard in person to determine their eligibility, professional knowledge and state of health. Record was also examined. Beside that the performance regarding recovery of Government dues and preparation of Revenue Record was also judged. After this exercise 11 Patwaris were retained and six Patwaris were considered unfit for retention. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector observed that the services of Khair Muhammad appellant, were terminated on account of misconduct but was re-employed on temporary basis by Settlement Officer. As such, the appellant was also found unfit for retention by the Collector vide order dated 19-9-1984. Aggrieved by this order the appellant as well as his colleagues filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, D.G.Khan Division, D.G.Khan who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on the ground that appellant was recruited purely on temporary basis for settlement operation and on completion of the Settlement Operation had no right to stick to the post. Besides that the appellant was over 45 years of age and could not be absorbed as a regular Patwari and he was also physically feeble and in poor health. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of argument learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was condemned unheard. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the appellant joined the service as Patwari in the year 1973 and never availed any sick leave. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the impugned order was illegal. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the appellant was efficient and dutiful and without justification had been found unfit for retention. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that undisputedly the appellant was recruited purely on temporary basis for completion of Settlement Operation and as such even if for argument sake he was fit for the job or efficient could not claim his retention on conclusion of the Settlement Operation. The learned Deputy District Attorney further stated that the appellant was above 45 years age and besides that his record of service was also adverse and as such the appellant was found unfit to be retained in the service.
5. The learned Deputy District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the appellant was given full apportunity to contest his case before the Collector (Respondent No. l .) as well as the learned Commissioner, D.G.Khan Division (Respondent No.2).
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney. We have also consulted the record including the departmental comments. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis for the Settlement Operation and as such his services stood automatically weaned out on conclusion of the Settlement Operation. Secondly the services of the appellant were availed) despite the fact that he was over-age and no relaxation of the age was possible and services were utilized for temporary duty. Accordingly for regular retention the age factor of the appellant and his health also came as a hurdle in the path of the appellant for retention through regular appointment. Lastly the performance was also poor and his services were previously terminated on ground of misconduct and his performance regarding recovery of Government dues etc and the preparation of record were below average.
7. Hence we find no force in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.