1993 PLP 1326 (SCMR)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The appellant was appointed as Assistant Agricultural Engineer on ad hoc basis by an order dated 14‑6‑1968. The appointment was initially for six months only but by periodic orders it was extended from time to time. However that may be, it did not confer any right upon him to continue in service in preference to the selectee of the Public Service Commission and was terminable at any time without notice. On 22‑3‑1974, on the advice of the Punjab Public Service Commission he was appointed to the same post on regular basis with effect from 7‑8‑1973. The order regularising his appointment stated that his seniority would be fixed with effect from 7‑8‑1973. He made several representations to the Provincial Government requesting that the regularisation should be ante‑dated to 14‑6‑1968 when he first joined service and that he should be given seniority accordingly. Apparently, these representations did not bear any fruit till 22‑6‑1977 when the Chief Minister allowed his representation by the following order:‑‑ "Chief Minister has been pleased to order that services of Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Rana be regularised w.e.f. 16‑6‑1968 and seniority be also fixed accordingly. (Sd.) Secretary to C.M." A fortnight later Martial Law was proclaimed in the country. The department declined to give effect to the order of the Chief Minister whereupon the appellant preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that as the order of the Chief Minister had not been communicated to the appellant or implemented it had lost its efficacy. The appellant has now come in appeal to this Court.

2. It is not disputed by the learned Advocate‑General who appeared on behalf of the respondent that the Chief Minister was competent to make an order of the nature which he did in the case of the appellant. In fact, under the relevant Constitutional provisions as these existed before amendment by the Eighth Amendment the executive authority of the Province was to be exercised by the Chief Minister. However, it was a different matter whether he should or should not have passed the impugned order for that question fell in the field of propriety. It is a common ground between the parties that the subsequent administrations did not care to withdraw this order even though the appellant had been pressing for its implementation. In the circumstances we do not see why the applicant should have been denied of its benefit. The mere fact that it was not communicated to the appellant did not detract from its efficacy. The judgment of this Court to which the learned Tribunal has referred, that is, Dr. Abdus Sattar Babar v. Pakistan (1984 SCMR 1178) has no relevance to the case of the appellant for it dealt with the finality as compared with the efficacy of an order which had not been communicated to the civil servant concerned.

3. For the reasons stated above we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal and direct that the order of the Chief Minister should be implemented. There will be no order as to costs. AA./1‑169/S Appeal accepted.