2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Dr. Ehsan‑ul‑Haque Khan for appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd October 2002. The appellant was appointed as Health Education Officer in Malaria Eradication Programme on 3‑6‑1970 on contract basis. However his contract appointment was terminated on 20‑6‑1971. He filed a civil suit against termination of services in the Civil Court. Litigation continued for a pretty long period. A decree was issued for his reinstatement in 1975. In the meantime many administrative changes took place in the organization of Malaria Eradication Programme. Ultimately the appellant was re‑instated on 25‑8‑1992. He filed Appeal No.826 of 1995 in the Punjab Service Tribunal for admissibility of back‑benefits which was dismissed on the ground that he was not a civil servant Thereafter the re‑instatement orders of the appellant were also withdrawn on 5‑5‑1999. The appellant filed department appeal for revival of reinstatement orders which was not decided within the statutory period hence the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the services of the appellant were terminated in 1971 he was a contract employee, but, when he was reinstated in 1992, he had to be treated as a regular civil servant because by that time due to administrative changes all other employees of Malaria Eradication Programme had also been appointed on regular basis and they were treated as civil servants It is also maintained that Malaria Eradication Programme was provincialised and placed under the Health Department in 1970 and thereafter all employees had to be considered as .regular employees. It is also maintained that there was no indication in the reinstatement orders of the appellant issued in 1992 that he was a contract employee. It is also maintained that orders of reinstatement once issued could not be withdrawn and that the judgment of the Service Tribunal that the appellant was not a civil servant when his appeal for back‑benefits was dismissed was misinterpreted by the respondents.

3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is pointed out that the appellant was appointed in May; 1970 on contract by the then Malaria Control Board and his services were terminated after a period of one month and 20 days only on serious charges of fraud and cheating. It is also maintained that the appellant obtained ex parte decree of the Civil Court for reinstatement which had to be on contract and moreover a Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction for passing such decree. It is also maintained that the appellant was reinstated in 1992 under political pressure exerted by an M.P.A and obviously reinstatement had to be on the same terms and conditions on which he was originally appointed in 1970 and since he had not worked for more than 12 years he could not be paid back‑benefits. It is maintained that the appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal claiming back‑benefits as civil servant on grounds of reinstatement which was dismissed on 5‑4‑1999. It is further maintained that the appellant had not been reinstated on merits: His reinstatement in 1992 was on political pressure as the appellant had misrepresented fact and concealed the nature of the appointment and as soon as the facts were known to the department, his, reinstatement was withdrawn.

4. I have considered the contentions from both sides an also perused the relevant record. I agree with the respondents that appellant was not a civil servant as he was appointed on contract in 1970 and his contract was terminated because of cheating on his part after few weeks. However as the appellant was originally appointed on contract basis, his reinstatement if at all justified would have been as contract employee. This Tribunal has already held that appellant could not be treated as civil servant while deciding his earlier Appeal No.826 of 1995. I cannot formulate a different opinion than what has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of the appellant. As the appellant was never a civil servant, therefore, his present appeal was also not maintainable in terms of section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./8/PST Appeal dismissed.