AQEEL AHMAD KHAN, CHAIRMAN.- This single order will dispose of the above-mentioned appeals as they arise out of the similar facts and involve common questions of law.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to these appeals are as under:-
(1) Appeal No. 615/94. Muhammad Ashraf x. Govt, of the Punjab through Chief Secretary & mo others.
The appellant Muhammad Ashraf was appointed as Statistical Officer in the Agriculture Department on ad hoc basis for a period of one year in the year 1990. This ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time for a further period of 6 months or till the appointment of a suitable candidate by the competent Authority, whichever was earlier. The services of the appellant were terminated on 29.4.1993 with retrospective effect from 15.3.1994.
(2) Appeal No. 962/94, Malik Muhammad Younis v. Secretary, Govt, of the Punjab, Agriculture Department and one other.
Malik Muhammad Younis joined service as Assistant Research Officer in the Agriculture Department on 20.11.1990 on ad hoc basis for a period of one year. The said appointment was extended from time to time vide orders dated 28.11.1991. 23.5.1992, 14.11.1992, 20,6.1993 and 8.7.1993.
The appellant's ad hoc appointment was terminated vide order dated 20.9.1993. Lt is stated that order of termination was passed as a result of the order dated 9.8.1993 of the Chief Minister obtained by the respondents on a summary' submitted to the Chief Minister.
(3) Appeal No. 100/96 Muhammad Majid v. Senior Staff Officer/XEN Operation, Irrigating, Faisalabad and another.
Muhammad Majid appellant was appointed as Sub-Engineer on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months on 19.9.1995. The competent Authority extended the ad hoc period of the appellant for another 6 months vide order dated 6.3.19% which was to expire on 19.6.19%. The appellant, apprehending that his services were liable to be terminated if the same were not regularised in the prescribed manner, submitted an application to the Chief Minister of the Punjab for regularisation of his ad hoc appointment. It is stated that the Chief Minister forwarded the request of the appellant to the competent Authority for consideration. The appellant made another application dated 10.9.19% to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Faisalabad Zone (respondent No. 2) for extension in his ad hoc period. Neither the services of the appellant were regularised nor the period was further extended beyond 19.9.19%.
(4) Appeal No..938/%. Arshad Mehmood Chadhar v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Faisalabad Zone, Faisalabad.
Arshad Mehmood Chadhar appellant joined service as work-charge Sub-Engineer in Public Health Engineering Hafizabad vide order dated 8.10.1992. Subsequently he was appointed as Sub-Engineer Civil on ad hoc basis vide order dated 13.8.1995. The competent Authority extended the ad hoc period of the appellant for a further period of 6 months on 6.3.1996 which was to expire on 26.8.1996.
It is stated that the appellant was conscious of the fact that his serv ices were liable to be terminated if the same were not regularised in the prescribed manner. He therefore, submitted an application dated 1.8.19% to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Faisalabad Zone praying for extension of his ad hoc period upto 24.2.1997 and for regularization of his ad hoc appointment. Neither the appellant's services were regularised nor further extension of ad hoc period was granted and as such his services - stood terminated alter 24.8.19%.
(5) Appeal No. 131/97, Abdul Ghaffar v. Administrative Officer, O/O Chief Engineer Irrigation, Faisalabad and another.
Abdul Ghaffar appellant was appointed as Daftri on ad hoc basis vide order dated 14.3.1995. His ad hoc period was extended from time to time. His services were terminated by the competent Authority vide order dated 15.9.1996.
The appellants in all the five appeals have challenged their respective orders of termination on the following grounds:
(a) That the impugned order is illegal, having been passed without any notice to the appellants:
(b) that the services of the appellants could not be terminated without die appointment of persons on regular basis to replace them as provided under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
3. The appeals have been contested by the respondents. They pleaded inter alia that the appellants had been appointed on ad hoc basis and as such, their services could be terminated at any time, without notice, by the competent Authority.
4. learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that according to the definition of the term 'ad hoc appointment given in Section 2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the service of an ad hoc employee could not be terminated without getting a regularly selected incumbent to replace them. Section 2 (a) of Punjab Civil Servants Act. 1974 reads as under:- "Ad hoc appointment means appointment of duly qualified persons made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment, pending recruitment in accordance with such method.
This definition only provides that a duly qualified person could be appointed to a post on ad hoc basis before recruitment to the post is made in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment. Section 2(a) ibid does not prescribe the method or the circumstances under which the services of an ad hoc employee could be terminated. The relevant provision which deals with the subject of termination of the service of an ad hoc appointee, is contained in Section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Learned counsel for the appellants asserted that according to clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 10, the appointments made on ad hoc basis could be terminated only on appointment of a person on the recommendation of the Selection Authority. In support of this contention learned counsel for the appellants cited the following cases:-. ii) 1995 PLC (CS) 765, (Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore). Syed Sajid Hussain Zaidi, v. Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore.
(ii) 1995 PLC (CS 611 (Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore), Muhammad Imran v. Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore.
(iii) 1995 PLC (CS) 433 (Punjab Service Tribunal. Lahore). Hussain Ahmad v. Secretary Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore.
(iv) 1995 PLC (CS) 377, (Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore). Azhar Munir v. Secretary, Government of the Punjab. Agriculture Department, Lahore.
(v) 1981 SCMR Page 469, Muhammad Shahbaz Cheema v. (Province of Punjab etc.).
No doubt it was held in the cases at serial Nos. (i) to (iv) mentioned above that an ad hoc appointment would remain in effect till the time a regularly selected incumbent was taken for appointment against such post and that an ad hoc employee has a right to continue in service till such regular incumbent is appointed in the prescribed manner. As observe ed earlier, the case of the appellants is that the sen ices of die appellants could not be terminated without appointment of a person to the post on regular basis. The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that their services were liable to be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason under sub- section (3) of Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The cases at Nos. (i) to (iv) mentioned above do not serve as precedent cases for the questions raised in the present appeals as the scope and effect of sub-section (3) of Section 10 was not considered and adjudicated upon therein.
5. In the case ''Muhammad Shahbaz Cheema v. Province of Punjab etc." reported in 198l SCMR 469, one of the petitioners was appointed as Sub-Engineer in the Punjab Irrigation Department on ad hoc basis. Subsequently the Irrigation Department invited fresh applications for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Engineers. The other two petitioners were also appointed on ad hoc basis and their services were subsequently terminated. The appeals filed by these three persons were dismissed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. They went up in appeal before the Supreme Court in which it was held that the Department was competent to issue advertisement for fresh recruitment on regular basis even when the petitioners were still continuing in service and that the ad hoc appointment was liable to be terminated if a regularly recruited candidate becomes available. The decision of the Service Tribunal was accordingly upheld. The judgment in the said case does not, in any way advance the case of the present appellants. The learned District Attorney has referred to an admitting order of the Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 955-L of 1995 against the judgment dated 28.5.1995 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 1372/94. A copy of the order has been placed on the file. In this case, one Arshad Ahmad was appointed as Agriculture Officer on ad hoc basis, initially for one year which period was then extended from time to lime. His services were terminated ride order dated 28.5.1995 and he challenged this order before the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 1372/94 {Arshad Ahmad v. Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab). The appeal was accepted on the ground that the ad hoc appointment of the appellant could not be terminated without getting a regularly selected incumbent to replace him. The Supreme Court, while granting leave for appeal, suspended the operation of the order dated 28.5.1995 of the Service Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal.
6. Section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is reproduced below for facility of reference:- 10.(1) The service of a civil serv ant may be terminated without notice: (i j during the initial or extended period of his probation: Provided that, where such civil servant is appointed by promotion on probation or, as the case may be, is transferred and promoted on probation from one "'(service) cadre or post to another ((service), cadre or post his service shall not be terminated so long as he holds a lien against his former post (service) or cadre, and he shall be reverted to his former (service) or as the case may be cadre or post;
(ii) if the appointment is made on ad hoc basis liable to- termination on the appointment of a person on the recommendation of the Selection Authority, on the appointment of such person.
(2) ln the event of a post being abolished or number of posts in a cadre or (service) being reduced the services of the most junior person in such cadre or (service) shall be terminated.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1) but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the service of a civil servant in temporary employment or appointed on ad hoc basis shall be liable to termination on thirty days notice or pay in lieu thereof.
According to Section 10 reproduced above, serv ices of a civil servant may be terminated without notice during the initial or extended period of his probation; and if the appointment is made on ad hoc basis liable to termination, on the appointment of a person on the recommendation of the Selection Authority, on the appointment of such person, sub-section (3) of Section 10 further lays down, that notwithstanding the provision of sub section (1), but subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), with which we are not concerned in the present case, the services of a civil servant in temporary' employment or on ad hoc basis shall be liable to termination on thirty' days' notice or pay in lieu thereof, lt appears that it was in accordance with these provisions that the appointment orders of the appellants clearly provided in the offer of appointment that their services were liable to be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason. All the five appellants accepted their ad hoc appointment on the clear understanding thai they were not acquiring any vested legal right to hold the appointments on a regular basis.
7. A plain reading of Section 10 would show that sub-section (1) thereof deals only with the cases in which services of a civil servant could be terminated without notice. According to clause (i) of sub- section (1) services of a civil servant could be terminated without notice during the initial or extended period of his probation. Clause (ii) provides that in case an ad hoc appointment is made subject to the condition that he would be liable to termination on the appointment of a person on the recommendation of the Selection Authority', his services could be terminated without notice only on the appointment of a regularly selected incumbent to the post. The wording of Section 10
(1) (ii) is clear enough to indicate that approval of regular selectee is to be awaited only if such a stipulation exists in the appointment letter which means that in the absence of such- stipulation, it was not necessary to wait for the regular appointment. It is evident that in case of an appointment made on ad hoc basis with a specific condition that it was liable to termination on appointment of a regularly selected person, the overriding provision contained in sub-section (1) regarding termination of service without notice, would come into play on the appointment of such person. It simply means that on the appointment of a tegular incumbent to the post, no notice is required before terminating the services of an ad hoc employee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 creates a complete bar to the termination of the serv ices of an ad hoc appointee till the appointment of regular selectee. Clause (ii) is subject to the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 10 which deals with the termination of sen ice without notice'. Clause (ii) thus specific only the stage when the provision regarding ' termination of services without notice' would amply to the category of ad hoc appointment mentioned therein.
8. The intention of the Legislature is further made clear by the overriding provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 10 which provides that notwithstanding the provision of sub-section (1), the services of a civil servant, appointed on ad hoc basis, are liable to termination on thirty days' notice or pay in lieu thereof. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that sub-section (3) is applicable only to appointments made on officiating, acting charge and current charge basis. The words 'notwithstanding the provisions of sub Section
(i) occurring in the beginning of section 10(3) wold apply to all cases of ad hoc appointments whether covered under clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) or not. We are thus of the view that the services of an ad hoc employee whether appointed with the condition that he w as liable to termination on the selection of regular incumbent, or appointed for a specific period or till further orders, could be terminated without assigning any reason on thirty days' notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act. 1974.
9. learned counsel for the appellants lastly argued that the impugned orders of termination are illegal as the same had been passed without any notice, as required under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The learned District Attorney submitted that the requirement of notice under subsection (3) is not without an alternative. In the absence of such a notice, the petitioner can claim a month's pay. Ln support of this contention he has relied upon the law laid down in the case "Ghulam Sarwar v. Province of Punjab" reported in 1982 SCMR Page 46. It was held in the cited case that an ad hoc employee is entitled to a month's pay before termination of his service but in the absence of such a notice, his claim extends to- a month's pay. It was further observed that he could seek one month's pay from the appropriate Authority and cannot, on that source, avoid the termination of his ad hoc appointment. The law laid down in the cited case is fully applicable to the facts of the present appeals.
10. On the foregoing reasons we find no merit in these appeals and the same are therefore, dismissed.