Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 918 1993 SLD 918 1993 SCMR 2337
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 409 of 1992, decision dated: 2-10-1993
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

WAPDA and 2 others

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN GUL

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil service----- ---- Ad hoc appointment---Termination---Validity---Civil servant not only passed written examination prescribed for the post but his appointment was also approved by the Selection Board---There being no condition attached to been selected by the Selection Board, he was entitled to regular appointment in terms of his appointment letter---Civil servant's termination from service was thus, not valid and he was entitled to be re-instated in service. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212 (3)---Appeal before Service Tribunal ---Condonation of delay in filing appeal---Validity---Order of Service Tribunal in condoning delay in filing appeal did not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to call for interference with the discretion exercised by Service Tribunal---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. ORDER SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: --The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the Order of Service Tribunal Islamabad, dated 29-9-1992, whereby service appeal filed by the respondent against his termination from service was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service without monetary benefits for the period he remained out of job but allowing that period to be counted towards the length of service. The learned counsel for the petitioners, WAPDA, contended before us that the respondent was an ad hoc employee and as such his termination from service before confirmation could not be challenged before the Service Tribunal. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred by 22 months and the delay could not be condoned in the circumstances of the case. On merits, the learned Tribunal found that the appointment of the respondent as Revenue Officer though was made on ad hoc basis but the condition of the appointment clearly stated that his appointment could be terminated in case he was not found suitable by the Selection Board or he failed to pass/qualify written test for the post of Revenue Officer. The initial appointment of the respondent was made on 8-12-1986 as Revenue Officer in power wing on ad hoc basis for 6…
🔒
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