2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAWAD HASSAN, J.

Through the instant Constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner has made the following prayer: "It is most respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be accepted and the impugned Termination Order/Letter No.M(Admin)/HR)/06/17/6766 dated 01.06.2017 issued by the Respondent No.3 may kindly be set aside and the Petitioner be re-instated in service with all back benefits, in the interest of justice and fair play."

2. The brief facts revealed from the petition are that the Petitioner was appointed in Punjab Daanish Schools and Centers of Excellence Authority (Government of the Punjab) as Manager Engineer on 12.10.2015 for a period of three years on contract basis. When the Petitioner was serving and performing his duties he was served with a letter of termination of service bearing No.6766 dated 01.06.2017. Hence, this petition.

3. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the Respondents vehemently denying the allegations levelled in the petition and praying for dismissal of the same. The Respondents, in support of their contentions, have also submitted certain documents through C.M. No.2/2017.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was fully qualified and performing his duties with due diligence but all of a sudden he was terminated without affording any opportunity of personal hearing; that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily which is against the principle of natural justice; that the contract of the Petitioner has been terminated prior to its expiry, as such mala fide on the part of the Respondents is explicit. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the case titled Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan (2017 SCMR 2010), Muhammad Ashraf Tiqana and others v. Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1159), Samina Kanwal v. Director Punjab Forestry Research Institute, Faisalabad (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1553).

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents has vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the Petitioner was terminated as per the terms and conditions of his contract employment which he accepted at the time of joining and now he cannot deviate from the same; that the Petitioner being contractual employee has no vested right of regular appointment and can be terminated at any stage as per the employment agreement; that this petition is not maintainable against a contractual employee in view of plethora of judgments of the apex Court; that the Petitioner was not a Government servant, therefore, the alleged policy does not apply to the case of the Petitioner. To fortify his contentions learned counsel for the Respondents has also relied upon the case titled Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 488), Mubashar Majeed v. Province of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 940) and PTCL v. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2011 SC 132).

6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record available with this Appeal.

7. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that he was appointed on contract basis for a period of three years on 12.10.2015 but he was terminated prior to the expiry of his contract period i.e. till 12.10.2018. Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed on purely contract basis in the Respondents/Department. The Petitioner after accepting the terms and conditions of his contract employment submitted his joining report. The specific terms in the employment contract, containing certain terms and conditions, are inserted which explicitly reveal that initially this offer of appointment is only for a period of three years whereas, the specific clause dealing with the controversy involved is Clause-4 which reflects that in case of gross misconduct or any other compliant, the Competent Authority can terminate this contract forthwith without any notice. Further, Clause-4(b) depicts that the contract can be terminated on one month's notice from either side or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. The termination letter of the Petitioner expressly reveals as under: "The Competent Authority, after considering all aspects, has decided to terminate your contract forthwith (with effect from the date of this letter) under the said clause 4b of the appointment letter dated 12 October 2015. Consequently, you shall be paid one month's salary in lieu of the one month's notice. You may approach the Accounts Department and settle all your accounts at the earliest, please."

8. The Respondents have invoked clause-4(b), terminated the services of the Petitioner with immediate effect entitling the Petitioner to receive one month's pay in lieu of the quit service as per terms and conditions, therefore, assertions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that no notice has been served upon the Petitioner, cannot sustain. The law on this point has been settled by the apex Court of the country in the cases of Government of Balochistan, Department of Health through Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar and 43 others (2005 SCMR 642) and Major (R) Nisar Ali v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another (2004 PLC (C.S.) 758).

9. Moreover, the report and parawise comments reveal that the behavior of the Petitioner remained unsatisfactory toward his superiors/ subordinates as well as his own assignments which resulted into termination of his contract. The Respondents placed on record through an application Minutes Sheet, in chronological order, which vividly shows his alleged conduct.

10. It is an established principle that where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of master and servant and in such like cases the Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Lt. Col. Rtd. Aamir Rauf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Defence and 3 others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 654) and Nadeem Ahmed v. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited and another (2005 PLC (C.S.) 1447).

11. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 488) has held that the 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. Employee had no right to claim extension in his contract period as a vested right. Behaviour of employee remained unsatisfactory towards his superior which resulted into his termination. In Case titled Mubashar Majeed v. Province of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 940) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also held that employee could not claim extension of the contract as a matter of right rather it was the prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or continue with the same by tending the contract. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be relied upon as each and every case has its own facts and circumstances and therefore, distinguishable to the case in hand.

12. In view of above, I see no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the instant petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ZC/M-51/L Petition dismissed.