2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.

Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the order dated 24-11-2010 as illegal, whereby his representation for re-instatement in service has been dismissed by respondent No.2, on the ground of his being absent from duty w.e.f. July, 2008 to February, 2009.

2. Brief fact of the case as narrated in the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant (B.S.11) at Research Center for Conservation of Sahiwal Cattle, Jhang, on contract basis, vide order dated 22-9-2005, for a period of three years. Later on, vide order dated 22-6-2008, the services of the petitioner along with 58 others were terminated. However, as per policy of the Government, the case of the petitioner and 58 others terminated employees was considered for extension of their contract period. Respondent No.2 issued office order dated 12-2-2009 whereby the period of contract of all the terminated employees except the present petitioner was extended. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed representation and when the same remained unattended, he filed Writ Petition No.22009 of 2010, which was disposed of, vide order dated 15-10-2010, directing respondent No.2 to decide the representations dated 8-4-2009 and 9-3-2010 in accordance with law. The representation of the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.2, vide his order dated 24-11-2010. Hence, the instant petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and the petitioner has been deprived of his job just for extraneous considerations. He argued that by refusing extension in contract, the petitioner has been given step motherly treatment and equal treatment is his fundamental right, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. He further argued that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor he was afforded an opportunity or being heard. He lastly, argued that the impugned order is mala fide and the same may be set aside, directing, the respondents to extend the contract period of the petitioner w.e.f. 1-7-2008 as has been done in the matter of his 58 colleagues.

4. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has opposed the instant petition by arguing that after the expiry of the initial contract period, the petitioner along with other 58 employees, vide letter No.2301, dated 2-8-2008, were allowed to continue working at their respective place of postings, but the petitioner despite being informed absented himself from the duty. He argued that the period of contract of such employees, who continued performing their duties were extended, vide Order No.534-41/13-A, dated 12-2-2009. He further argued that during the personal hearing the petitioner could not justify his absence from duty for a period of 8 months and his representation was dismissed on merits.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The record revealed that after the expiry of the initial contract on 30-6-2008, the petitioner himself opted not to continue his service with the respondent/institution. Despite the terminated employees having been asked to continue their duties after the expiry of the contract, the petitioner did not bother to contact the office. The conduct of the petitioner shows his slackness and disinterestedness in the matter. He submitted application before the Director Research Center for Conservation of Sahiwal Cattle Jhang, for extension of his contract employment on 8-4-2009 i.e. after about more thin nine months. He was given opportunity of being heard by the Authority. The case of the petitioner being not at par with the employee, his representation has rightly been dismissed by the competent authority. No ground is made out for justifying indulgence by this Court. The instant petition, is accordingly, dismissed. K.M.Z.-A/45/L Petition dismissed.