' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---Briefly, the facts of this appeal are that the appellant Dr. Javed Iqbal was appointed vide letter dated 28-10-1990 in the Pakistan Railways on a fixed honoraria of Rs, 2,500 per month for a period of six months. This arrangement was extended from time to time till 30-4-1994 when his services were terminated with effect from 30-4-1994 by serving a notice on him on 9-4-1994. Being aggrieved he made a departmental representation on 25-4- 1994 to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways which remained unresponded and after the expiry of 90 days period, he preferred this appeal before this Tribunal on 8-8-1994.
2. Alhaj Muhammad Iqbal Ch. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appointment letter dated 28-10-1990 whereunder the appellant was appointed on fixed honoraria of Rs,2,500 per month for a period of six months was ultra vires of Articles 3 and 37 of the Constitution and his appointment could not be termed as contractual appointment' but it was ad hoc appointment which could only be terminated under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
3. On the other hand, Ch. Rahim-ud-Din, Advocate appearing for the respondent-department contended that the appellant was appointed on fixed pay for a period of six months which was extended from time to time and his appointment being a contractual appointment, he was not a civil servant within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. He further contended that at time of appointment, the appellant gave an undertaking whereby he accepted the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment letter dated 28-10-1990 and could not resile from that bond and his services have been terminated in accordance with the accepted terms and conditions.
4. From the record it appears that the appellant was appointed as Medical Officer vide appointment letter dated 28-10-1990 which, inter alia provided: (i) You would get a fixed honoraria of Rs,2,500 p.m. (ii) This is purely a temporary arrangement for a period of six moths from the date you start work or till the availability of a Railway Medical Officer, whichever is earlier, (iii) You shall have no claim for absorption on the Pakistan Railways on temporary or permanent basis, (iv)
These arrangements do not carry the privileges or rights admissible to railway employees nor entitle you to other facilities or fringe benefits and that you will not be treated as a Railway servants and (v) Your services will be terminable on 15 days notices from either side without assigning any reason. And it was left open to the appellant that if the offer is acceptable on the aforesaid terms and conditions, he should report for duty. The appellant executed a bond of service on judicial stamp paper of Rs,5 accepting the conditions laid down in his appointment letter and he in no circumstance could deviate from the accepted terms and conditions. His contractual appointment was extended from time to time alongwith other Medical Officer and lastly up to 31-10-1993.
Ultimately his services were terminated in accordance with clause (v) of the appointment letter.
From the events mentioned above it is thus clear that the appointment of the appellant was on contract basis and on a fixed honoraria of Rs,2,500 per month and for a fixed period of six months which was extended with the passage of time. Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 defines the meaning of Civil Servant and it provides that (b) "civil servant" means a person who is a member of an All Pakistan Service or of a Civil Service of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post connected with defence, but does not include-- (1) xxx (ii) A person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged basis or who is paid from contingencies: or (iii) xxx. The plain reading of the above provisions of the Civil Servants Act clearly spells out that any appointment made on contract is excluded from the definition of civil servant and does not fall within the meaning of civil servant. It is also clear that as claimed by the appellant, his appointment is also not covered under the definition of ad hoc appointment as given in Civil Servants Act, 1973. Therefore, the appellant being a contract employee is not amenable to our jurisdiction for redress of his grievance. We, therefore, without adverting to other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant hold that the appellant is not a civil servant and he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.