2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Raja Muhammad Nawaz v, Government of the Punjab 1981 SCMR 523 ref. Ch. Abdul Razzaq for Petitioner. Fazal Meeran Chohan, Addl. A.-G. Petitioner herein was a Supervisor in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Punjab who had been appointed on contract basis on 7-1-1993. Although the said appointment was to enure up to 31 5-1993 but, undisputedly he continuously continued in that position till 20-7-2000 when he was relieved from duty like many others. In the year 2002 the matter received the notice and attention of Chief Minister of the Province who approved, the reinstatement of all 831 employees of the Department. In the list of such employees, the name of Muhammad Ijaz Ahmed (petitioner herein), appears at serial No.264. However while issuing order dated 24-5-2003 (of reinstatement of 831 employees), his name was not included therein. The matter 'was accordingly taken up by him departmentally and then before the Punjab Service Tribunal where his appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. He has in this context approached this Court for the redressal of his grievance.

2. In the report and parawise comments filed by the respondent Department a somewhat curious position has been taken raising a preliminary objection that the case relates to terms and conditions of service of a "civil servant" and Punjab Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters, whereas in the succeeding paragraph it is stated that the petitioner was hired on contract only and is "not a civil servant' under Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Object perhaps .was to invoke Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan or to non-suit the petitioner on any possible ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General have been heard in the matter.

3. The initiation of summary for reinstatement of 831 employees of the Department at the initiative of the Chief Minister of the Province is not disputed. In the said list the name of the petitioner appears at serial No.264. The consequential order however issued on 24-5-2003 though relate to 831 employees yet his name was excluded therefrom. No plausible and convincing explanation has been brought forth as to how his name. was dropped and the name of someone else was included. Needless to emphasis that what had been approved and ordered by the Chief Minister of the Province, could not be nullified or altered by the Department. A strange explanation is being advanced that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the list which was approved- by the competent authority or the Chief Minister "erroneously" due to "clerical mistake". It may be mentioned that no such change was ordered by the Chief Minister. The Department could not of its own act to the- prejudice of the petitioner and delete his name from the list of reinstated employees. Reference in this context may be made to Raja Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of the Punjab (1981 SCMR 523). The petitioner was thus entitled to seek implementation of his reinstatement ordered by the Chief Minister of the Province and the respondent/Department had no lawful authority to deprive the petitioner therefrom on such a flimsy ground and hollow ruse. In view of the petition is accepted with the direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as ordered by the Chief Minister other Province. M.H./I-236/L Petition allowed.