' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Petitioners are qualified Electrical and Electronics Engineers. They were appointed in the respondent Corporation against permanent vacancies of Project Officers on contract basis vide Notification dated 16th January, 1995, for period of three years, extendable for a further period commencing from 16th January, 1995 to 15th January, 1998. However, before the expiry of the said period, their services were terminated by an office order issued by the main office on 12th December, 1996. The petitioners challenged their termination in the High Court but their petitions were dismissed on the ground that being contract employees they could not invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199. Hence this petition.
2. Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the services of the petitioners were terminated by an omnibus order without hearing or issuing any show cause notice to them as such the impugned order of termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice and was thus not sustainable in law. Learned counsel next contended that out of twenty five persons who were appointed alongwith the petitioners, five were absorbed and their services were not terminated; hence the termination of the petitioners was discriminatory and against the rules of fair play and natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that after the appointments of the present petitioners, some further appointments were made on the same basis and out of those such persons, some were terminated as in the present case and the Constitution petitions filed by them were allowed and their termination was held to be illegal as being in breach of the rules of natural justice but in the instant case, though the case of several petitioners was at par with some of those petitioners whose petitions were allowed by the High Court, they were discriminated and denied the same relief to which they were entitled on the principles of consistency, fair play, justice and equity. Learned counsel also contended that it had been held by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the petitioners' case was distinguished from the petitioners of Writ Petition. No, 79 of 1997 as they had been subsequently absorbed whereas the petitioners had not been absorbed but, as a matter of fact even some of those persons had not been absorbed and continued to be on contract basis like the petitioners but their petitions were allowed and their termination orders were declared to be without lawful authority whereas same relief has been denied to the petitioners . In this connection, learned counsel has filed photo copy of the judgment passed by the High Court in Constitution Petition No, 79 of 1997. The learned counsel lastly contended that the services of the petitioners had been terminated by a general order passed by the Ministry of Defence (Aviation Division) whereby only the services of civilian contract employees had been terminated and not of non-civilian employees which amounted to discrimination and, therefore, the termination of the petitioners was not in accordance with law as being discriminatory and prohibited by the Constitution. The learned counsel went on to further submit that the said general letter made no specific mention of the employees of respondent-Corporation was a general order by the Ministry of Defence which showed that the petitioners terminated by the competent authority i,e, the respondent-Corporation of their own but at the behest of the Ministry of Defence (Aviation Division) and as such, the termination of the petitioners services was not legal or proper but was mala fide and unsustainable in law.
3. The contentions are substantial. Leave is accordingly granted, inter alia, to consider the same.
Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioners is suspended with notice to the respondents for 1-7-1997.