RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against the Government Notification No. Seen tay/Colleges/300-06/92 dated 5-9-1992 whereby appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Scale B-17 on ad hoc basis.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Grade B-17 on 2-5-1990.
This appointment was made on ad hoc basis alongwith seventy-one other -persons. Appellant joined his duty as Lecturer in Government Degree College, Bhimber. The ad hoc appointment of appellant was terminated vide Order No.7039-49/92 dated 31-5-1992 on the ground that appellant was not selected by Public Service Commission. This order was, however, recalled vide Government Order No. Seen tay/Colleges/PS/291-98/92 dated 2-9-1992 and appellant was reinstated to his service from the date of his termination of service. This order was amended vide the impugned order. The appellant filed a review petition against the said notification and after waiting for statutory period of ninety days he has filed the appeal before this Tribunal.
Written objections have been filed on behalf of respondent wherein the facts stated in the memorandum of appeal have been thoroughly denied.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the papers on the file.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of termination of service of appellant was vacated by the Government. Consequently it shall be deemed that the Order No.7039-49/92, dated 31-5-1992 never existed and appellant shall be deemed to be in continuous service with effect from 2-5-1990 and he was entitled to enjoy the benefits of the provisions of section 3 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir CivilServants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) Act, 1992 which provides that all ad hoc civil servants shall be deemed to have been validly selected and appointed on regular basis. The learned counsel for respondent has argued that appellant was not*in service on 18-8-1992, the date of commencement of the said Act, therefore, his case does not fall within the purview of section 3 of the said Act. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties we have minutely scrutinized the various orders passed from time to time in this case. It is an admitted fact that appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis as 1 Lecturer vide Notification dated 2-5-1990. His ad hoc appointment was terminated on 31-5-1992 through Notification No.7039-49/92. Government vide Notification No. Seen tay/Colleges/PS/300-06/92 dated 2-9-1992 while reinstating appellant passed the following order: -- Government cancelled the Notification No.Seen tay/Colleges/PS/300---06/92 dated, 2-9-1992 in respect of serial No.70, 80, 81, 83, 86 and 87 and substituted" serial No.70 as under through NotificationNo. Seen tay/Colleges/PS/300-06/92, dated 5-9-1992.
The effect of this Notification is that the Notification No seen tay/Colleges/PS/300-f6/92, dated 2-9- 1992. Stands withdrawn by the Government with the result that the appointment of appellant from the date of his reinstatement also come to an end. The vital point needs to be addressed in his case is as to whether the appellant can avail the benefits of section 3 of Act No.XXII of 1992. This is an admitted fact that appellant was not in service on the commencing day of the said Act. There is a lot of force in the argument of the learned counsel for: respondent that the benefits of the provisions of section 3, of the said Act, could only be extended to a person who was actually in service and not to a person who was out of service or could be deemed to lie m service by a subsequent event when the Act came into force. No doubt; the appellant, was reinstated from the date of termination of his service and he could be deemed to have been in service on the commencing day of the Act but the order of reinstatement was withdrawn by the impugned order and his service was declared as fresh ad hoc appointment. The continuity of previous service claimed by the appellant came to an end, with the result that the appellant could not, be deemed to be in continuous service. Section 3.Of the Act does only take into account the service of that person who was in service on the relevant date. The reinstatement of appellant will not qualify him to enjoy the benefits of the said Act.
5. In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that appellant has no case for a favourable judgment. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.