Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1025 2019 SLD 1025 2019 PLJ 149
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 243662 of 2018, heard on 08.01.2019.
JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat, Qalbe Hassan, Taha Asif, Talat Farooq Sheikh, Barrister Taha Shaukat and Muhammad Sharif Khokhar, Advocates
Respondent(s) by: Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Additional Attorney-GeneralMr. Umme Imara, Advocate/vi

TAHIR PERVAIZ, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LEGAL AFFAIRS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYSVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 6 OTHERS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10A,25,199

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 102

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 16,21

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--General Clauses Act, 1897, Ss. 16 & 21--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, (10 of 1984), Art. 102--Constitutional petition--Contractual Employee--Termination of Contract by competent Authority--Term & Conditions of service--Locus standi--Jurisdiction Maintainability--Question of--Whether this petition is maintainable in contractual matters as petitioner was purely appointed on contract basis--Determination--Petitioner was made prior to expiry of his contract which is illegal--It is a settled principle of law as laid down by Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan that a contractual employee cannot enforce terms of his contract in constitutional jurisdiction--It is an established principle that where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of master and servant and in such like cases Constitutional petition under Article 199 of Constitution is not maintainable--It is clear that competent authority to appoint Petitioner is Selection Board headed by Secretary of said Ministry/Division and not Prime Minister rather it is approving authority, as impugned order cannot be said to have been passed by incompetent authority--Petitioner being a contract employee has no locus standi to file instant petition--It is settled law that, where a service grievance is agitated by a person/employee who is not governed by statutory rules of service, constitutional petition before High Court, in terms of Article 199 of Constitution is not maintainable--It is a cardinal principle of law that a contract employee instead of pressing for his reinstatement to serve for leftover period can at best claim damages to extent of unexpired period of his service--It is needless to mention that contract employees are always governed by terms and conditions of contract and cannot ask for more than that--Therefore in this case, his contract was terminated under Clause-11 of contract--It is settled principle that where employee, after accepting terms and conditions of his contract employment had submitted his joining report, service of such employee could be terminated without assigning any reason--It is prerogative of competent authority either to dispense…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492