' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 27- 9-1993 passed by the learned Service Tribunal it Appeal No,151(L) of 1993, filed by the appellant seeking regularization in the service of respondents.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant was appointed as Civilian Medical Practitioner in Pakistan Air Force with effect from 2nd August, 1986 by and appointment letter dated 25-6-1986 on temporary basis for indefinite period terminable by one month's notice from either side. It seems on 20-10-1986 the appellant executed a service agreement. After that, through his letter dated 7-11- 1986, he sought clarification as to the appointment and confirmation from the Officer Commanding, Pakistan Air Force Base, Lahore. The above letter reads as follows:-- "Sir, Appointment of Civilian Medical Practitioner
1. Reference is made to Appointment Letter No,LB/1202/1/PC, date 25th June, 1986 and agreement form, dated 20th October, 1996.
2. I joined my 'duty as civilian medical practitioner against the establishment vacancy on 2nd August, 1986 as for appointment letter but I am not satisfied with the agreement made on 20th October, 1988 by which I am being deprived of my rights and privilege of the service benefits.
According to AFO No,40-3 sub-rule (6), (Copy attached) it is against the provision of law.
3. In the present circumstances, it is very difficult for me to serve as a doctor. It is, therefore, requested to clarify the appointment and confirmation please. Yours sincerely, (Sd.)
(IKRAM UL HAQ TARIQ) Doctor, Civilian Medical Practitioner."
' The respondents through their letter, dated 15th December, 1986 forwarded to the appellant the clarification by Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (Admin) to the following effect:-- "From: Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar To: P.A.F. Base, Lahore Date: 3rd December, 1986 Ref: Air HQ/17104/407/CP (B)
' APPOINTMENT OF CIVILIAN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS IN THE PAKISTAN AIR FORCE
1. Reference is made to your Letter No,LB/1202/1/PC, dated 29th November, 1986 with a copy of appointment letter of Dr.Ikram-ul-Haq Tariq, dated 25th June, 1986.
2. Approval is hereby accorded to the appointment of Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq Tariq as Civilian Medical Practitioner at P.A.F. Base, Lahore in BPS No,17 against the establishment vacancies of the service medical officers (tenable posts). The appointment is purely on temporary basis for indefinite period.
3. His service will be promulgated in the Base Office Order on ad-hoc basis for the convenience of drawing of pay and other allowances from C.A.A.F. Lahore Cantt. (Pay Section). The ad-hoc will be extended from time to time for a period of six months in each case.
4. If the services of the officer is found excellent up to the entire satisfaction of higher P.A.F.
Authorities and he continued serving for at least five years with full devotion and utmost honesty in true spirit of excellent P.A.F. Traditions then he will be eligible for confirmation in P.A.F. As per Government Policy A.F.O.No,40-63, dated 29th November, 1980.
5. You are advised to inform the C.M.P. Concerned accordingly."
3. The grievance of the appellant is that, in terms of the above clarification the respondents have not considered his case for regularization under policy, dated 29th November, 1980 (at page 32 of the Paper Book) though he had been in service for more than five years. Since the appellant did not get redress of his grievance from the department, he approached the Service Tribunal by filing the above appeal which was declined, whereupon he filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal in this Court, which was granted to consider whether the respondents could convert the appointment of petitioner on ad-hoc basis unilaterally by their letter dated 6-12-1992 and then refuse to consider him for confirmation.
4. In support of this appeal Mr. Muhammad Akram Khawaja, learned ASC, vehemently contended that in view of the assurance given by the respondents through the above-quoted letter, dated 3rd December, 1986, the case of the appellant was entitled to be considered in terms of the aforesaid policy, dated 29-11-1980. His further submission was that in an identical case of Dr. Nuzhat Fahim, the respondents, after considering her case under the above policy, had regularized her services.
5. Mr. Tariq Mahmood, learned Deputy Attorney-General for the respondents has vehemently contended that since the status of the appellant was that of a temporary employee whose services were terminated by one month's notice, the respondents were not obliged to consider the appellant's case for regularization. In our view, the basic question is as to whether the assurance which was given by the respondents through the aforesaid letter, dated 3rd December, 1986 should be adhered to or not, particularly, keeping in view the admitted position that Dr.Nuzhat Fahim was also employed on the same terms and conditions on which the appellant was employed but her case was considered under the aforementioned policy dated 29-11-1980 and her services were regularized.
6. We are of the considered opinion that it is up to the competent Authority to take the decision, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, which is just and proper. We would, therefore, allow the above appeal and direct the respondents to consider the appellant's case for regularization in terms of the above policy dated 29-11-1980. There will be no order as to costs.