JUSTICE ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --The facts of this case are that the appellant was appointed as Inspector (B-11) in the Income Tax Department by order dated 25-7-1989. Under the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment, his appointment was ad hoc, purely temporary and on probation period for two years, and in case of his unsatisfactory performance he was :o be discharged from service on 14 days notice. The appellant accepted the offer of appointment and continued working as Inspector (B-11), but suddenly his services were terminated by order dated 2-12-1990 being no longer required. The appellant made a departmental appeal dated 26-12-1990 which was rejected and the decision of rejection of his appeal was communicated to him vide letter dated 27-3-1991, received by him on 28-4-1991. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 26-5-1991.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had completed his probationary period satisfactorily and his services could not be terminated without notice. It is also contended that this action was premeditated and mala fide as the appellant had been recruited through Placement Bureau and on dissolution of the Peoples Party Government, the successor Government terminated the services of the employees who were appointed by the PPP Government. It is further contended that the Government had issued instructions to regularise the services of those employees who fulfilled the educational qualifications and were eligible for appointment, and the services of only those persons who did not possess the minimum requisite qualifications or were not otherwise eligible, were to be terminated. It is argued that the appellant fulfilled all the requisite conditions for appointment as Inspector, as such termination of appellant's services was without lawful authority.
3. The respondents have resisted the appeal and filed comments in which it has been stated that the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis under the directions of the Placement Bureau and his appointment was not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. As such, his services could be terminated without notice.
4. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was appointed as Inspector (B-11) in the Income Tax Department by order dated 25-7-1989 and he was placed on probationary period for two years which was to expire on 25-7-1995 and under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 his appointment as such was not ad hoc appointment but it was an `initial appointment', because an ad hoc appointee is never placed on probation. The services of the appellant were terminated as being no longer required vide order dated 2-12-1990. Prior to that, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar Zone, Peshawar by his order dated 16-10-1990 addressed to the IAC, Abbottabad and others, in compliance with the instructions of the CBR contained in their letter No. 6(10)/90. DTA---9, dated 20-9-1990, directed the concerned authorities that services of the appellant may be regularised according to the normal rules and prescribed procedure, but these instructions were not adhered to. In spite of the fact that the appellant fulfilled all the requisite requirements of education, age and quota etc., but his services were terminated, as stated above, which was not justified. Similar question came up for adjudication before this Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 469 and 470(P)/90 filed by M/s. Khalid Javed Babar and Muhammad Quraish Khan v. Regional Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 29-8-1992 allowed both the appeals to the extent that cases of both the appellants may be processed for regularisation of their services in accordance with the rules but without the benefit of reinstatement into service unless they qualify for appointment after due process of regularisation. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others filed Civil Petitions Nos. 381/92 and 382/92 before the Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed both the petitions by its order, dated 20-4-1993. The concluding paragraph 4 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-- "It is true that an ad hoc appointee cannot claim any vested right of remaining in service in the absence of regularisation of his services. However, an ad hoc appointee is entitled to have his case considered for regularisation by the competent authority in accordance with the policy and the rules. In the present case, the Tribunal has not ordered reinstatement of the respondents. It has found that the ground on which the respondents' services were not regularised i.e. Relaxation of the age beyond five years was not in fact a good ground in view of the subsequent memorandum of the Establishment Division dated 9-4-1989 referred to in the above quoted portion of the judgment of the Tribunal, whereby the competent authority was authorised to relax age upto ten years. After having found this, it directed the authority concerned to reconsider the case of the respondents.
We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Leave is accordingly refused."
Since the matter stands finally adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we allow the appeal with the direction that the case of the appellant for regularisation of his appointment may be processed in accordance with the rules and in view of above observations of Supreme Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 381/92 and 382/92.