Pakistan Case Law← Search
1995 SCMR 82

GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and others vs IQBAL

Citation1995 SCMR 82
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 94-P of 1994
Date1994-09-07
Judge(s)Fazal Ilahi Khan, Wali Muhammad Khan
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31-1-1994 of the learned Peshawar High Court in W.P. No, 431 of 1993.

2. ' This case has, unfortunately, a chequred history. Respondent No,1 herein was appointed as Econonic Geologist Grade-18 to the Project Monitoring Cell in the Industries, Commerce Mineral Development, Labour and Transport Department purely on ad hoc basis with immediate effect for a period of six months or till such lime a nominee of the Public Service Commission is available whichever is earlier vide Gazette Notification No, PMC/J-St-1/84 published in the Government Gazette, dated 25th of November, 1984. On the promulgation of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Ordinance, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) respondent filed Writ Petition No,589 of 1986 claiming the benefit of section 3 of the Act which was allowed by the learned High Court vide judgment dated 14-3-1989 and the Government was directed to regularise the services of the respondent herein as admissible under the provisions of the Ordinance. Leave against the same was refused by this Court vide order dated 20-2-1990. In pursuance of the judgment of the High Court the following Notification was issued:-- "No, So.III (IND) 31-238/84(B).--In pursuance of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar judgment in the Writ Petition No, 589 of 1986 dated 14-3-1989 and Supreme Court of Pakistan Order in C.P. No,169- P/89 dated 20-2-1990 and in supersession of Notification No,PMC/3-Sft/84 dated 25-11-1984, the Governor N.W.F.P. Is pleased to regularize the appointment of Mr. Iqbal Jehangir Khan Yousafzai as Economic Geologist BPS-18 w,e,f. 21-11-1987 in the Project Monitoring Cell, Industries Department till the conclusion of this Project or the abolition of the post, whichever is earlier."

3. ' This Notification was challenged by the respondent on the ground that it was derogative and circumventive of the previous orders. This writ petition was disposed of on 11-1-1993 holding that the words "till the conclusion of the Project or abolition of the post whichever is earlier" were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The disputed words were ordered to be struck off from the Notification. However, vide Notification dated 29-6-1993 the Governor N.-W.F.P. Terminated the services of the respondent being officer of the Project Monitoring Cell Industries Department on the expiry of completion of the project on 30-6-1993. Respondent No,1 assailed the aforementioned Notification terminating his services it being in flagrant violation of the law and orders of the Supreme Court earlier passed. The writ petition was accepted on 31-1-1994 in favour of respondent No,1 and petitioners were directed to absorb respondent No,1 in the Department as regular civil servant in Grade-18 or to any equivalent post available in the Department. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the said order.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 (caveator) we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 was appointed for a specific project and on A completion of that Project his services were liable to be terminated is misconceived. Admittedly there being consistent decision of the learned High Court in the previous writ petitions, confirming his services in pursuance of section 3 of the Act, and deletion of the words from the Notifications regulating his services declaring those words to be circumventive and derogative, and those judgments, having, become final such questions decided could not be re- opened and agitated. It would be helpful to reproduce the order of appointment of the respondent per Notification dated 25th November, 1984 as under:-- "No, PMC/3-81/84.--The Governor, N.-W.F.P. Is pleased to appoint Mr. Iqbal Jehangir Khan Yousafzai as Economic Geologist, Project Monitoring Cell, in the Industries, Commerce, Mineral Development, Labour and Transport Department, Government of N.-W.F.P. In BPS-18 purely on an ad hoc basis with immediate effect for a period of six months or till such time a nominee of the Public Service Commission is available whichever is earlier.

2. The terms and conditions of his ad hoc appointment are as under:--

(i) He shall be declared medically fit by the Standing Medical Board of the Provincial Government.

(ii) He will be given the initial pay of BPS-18 (2,100--150-3,000) alongwith allowances which may be sanctioned by the Government from time to time.

(iii) His services can be terminated without assigning any cause of reason.

(iv) He will be required to serve anywhere in the N.-W.F.P.

(v) No notice period would need to be given if his services for any reason, are to be terminated.

(vi) The period of his appointment as Economic Geologist on ad hoc basis will not confer any right on him in the matter of his regular appointment to the post in question and his service will count towards seniority."

5. Respondent was undoubtedly appointed as "Economic Geologist" Project Monitoring Cell, Industries Department, Government of N.-W.F.P." and not to a Project. His appointment was "for a period of 6 months till such time a nominee of the Public Service Commission was made available" and not till the completion of project rather no project is mentioned. Respondent was further to serve anywhere in N.-W.F.P. And not at the Project. It was in the light of these clear and unambiguous salient features of his appointment order which prevailed with the learned High Court regularising the respondent's service B and deleting certain words from the order regularising his service in the earlier decided writ petitions. Petitions for leave to appeal against those judgments of the learned High Court have been dismissed and those judgments having become final and binding the petitioners were rightly directed to act accordingly and to implement those orders in letter and spirit.

6. ' We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court holding the respondent a permanent employee in the Department as a regular civil servant in BPS-18. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and the petition dismissed.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search