1982 PLP 46 (SCMR)

‑‑ Art. 212 (3)‑Appeal against orders of Service Tribunal‑‑Adhoc appointment‑Normal rules of recruitment not followed in making appointment of petitioner and his appointment expressed to be adhoc- Appointment, held, could not become regular simply by lapse of time‑Petitioner though entitled to one month's previous notice before discontinuing his services yet such requirement not without sin alterna tive and in absence of such notice petitioner could claim one month's pay from appropriate authority. Rafiq Butt, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Mahtab Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 17th November, 1981. SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioner a former employee of Municipal Committee, Chishtian, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal comprising its Chairman acting singly whereby while expressing sympathy with the petitioner, his service appeal was dismissed on 3‑11‑1981. The petitioner was appointed on the 8th of October, 1979 on compas sionate grounds "on purely ad hoc basis" in the National Pay Scale No. 16 and posted as Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Chishtian. His services were terminated on 23rd December, 1980 with immediate effect. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this and approached the Service Tribunal. His case was that notwithstanding the fact that the appointment was ad hoc, he was a regular appointee because the post against which he was appointed was permanent and he bad continued beyond a period of 6 months for which ad hoc appointments could be made. The Chairman of the Service Tribunal himself heard the petitioner, expressed sympathy with his cause and dismissed it. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the law, the Chairman could not acting singly deal with the appeal and on merits, he has reiterated what has been considered by the Chairman in the judgment under appeal. The first legal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not take notice of the amendment made in the Punjab Service Tribunal Act by Ordinance No. X1 of 1980 of 19th February, 1980. Section 3(A) was added whereby it became permissible for the Chairman to constitute himself singly as the Tribunal and dispose of the matter. This amendment meets the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In making appointment of the petitioner, the normal rules of recruitment had not been followed. The appointment had been made on compassionate grounds. It was expressed to be ad hoc. Simply by lapse of time such a appointment could not become regular. It is true that the petitioner was not given a month's notice as was required to be given while terminating the services of an ad hoc appointee. This requirement of the law, however, is not without an alternative. In the absence of such a notice, the petitioner' claim extends to a month's pay. He has to seek it from the appropriate authority. He cannot on that score avoid the termination of his ad hoc appointment. We find no merit in this petition and the leave to appeal is refused. Petition dismissed.