1. ' M.A. Rashid son of Ch. Sher Muhammad, Enforcement Officer, Food Directorate, Punjab, Lahore, has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. ' On 9-10-1985, the petitioner retired as Enforcement Officer after serving the Food Department for 32 years. On 10-10-1985 he was re-employed for two years. The term was to expire on 10-10-1987.
3. ' On 20-10-1986, the petitioner was served with a notice whereby his services were terminated. He has filed this petition against the termination order.
4. ' The petitioner appeared in person and argued his case. His grievance is that he had a brilliant and excellent record as Enforcement Officer. He detected and prosecuted many cases and thus saved National Exchequer from a tremendous financial loss. He had meritorious record. This was the reason that the Government re-employed him but subsequently his services were terminated in an arbitrary manner and contrary to the public interest.
5. ' This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 3-11-1986. Thereafter, number of adjournments were given to the petitioner at his request as he was sure that respondent No.2 was likely to withdraw the notice terminating his services and allow him to complete the term of two years.
6. Unfortunately, it did not so happen.
7. ' It is not possible to keep this petition pending indefinitely. SO, I have heard the arguments today.
8. ' The petition has been opposed by the Assistant Advocate-General who is assisted by Muhammad Azeem, Section Officer, Food Department, on the ground that the petitioner after retirement was employed on contractual basis. He as such has no vested right to come to this Court and challenge the notice of termination. He drew my attention to clause 8 of the agreement which is as follows:- ' "Termination of services.-- His services will be liable to terminate during terms of re-employment on one month's notice on either side."
9. ' He argued that on basis of this condition, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner having accepted the said condition cannot take exception to the impugned termination order.
10. ' Unfortunately, the petitioner has no case. Having retired and re-employed on contractual basis his services can be terminated in accordance with the clause referred to above. As such, I am unable to help him. Nevertheless, I feel that an officer of his calibre should not have been thrown out in such an arbitrary manner keeping in view his meritorious record and the services rendered by him for the Department.
11. Dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.