2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Pursuant to the advertisement that was published in newspaper applications were invited for the post of Primary Teacher in BPS-9. One of the terms that the appointment was that it was to be on contract basis for a period of three years. The written test was conducted by I.B.A. Sukkur and in the test 132 candidates were declared to have passed the test. On 21-7-2008 the respondent No.2 issued offer letters to the petitioners. On 31-7-2008 posting orders were issued calling upon them to join service within fifteen days. It is stated that the petitioners joined their services on 1-8-2008 and started working as Primary School Teachers however they have not been paid salaries, hence the present petition. Learned Addl. A.-G. argued that there were only 32 posts that were to be filled, but the concerned E.D.O. issued appointment letters in excess of these 32 posts. He further submitted that budgetary allocation were only for 32 posts therefore, salaries cannot be paid in excess of 32 posts. He also argued that without authorization E.D.O. issued appointment letters beyond the sanctioned strength of 32 posts who has now retired. He next argued that the remedy of the petitioners lies not before this Court and they have to approach Sindh Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act. In support of his contentions, he also relied upon the case of Punjab Textbook Board Lahore v. Muhammad Akhtar Sherani and others PLD 2001 SC 1032. One the Counsel for the petitioners in the connected petition i.e. Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari on the other hand argued that in the advertisement that were published in the newspaper the posts were to be filled in on contract basis for a period of three years and as Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 does not extend to contract employees, therefore, the remedy for non-payment of salaries has been sought under section 199 of the Constitution. The judgment cited by learned Additional Advocate-General has no application for the reason that the honourable Supreme Court in that case treated the employees as Civil Servant whereas in the respect case the petitioners counsel has himself stated that they are not civil servants as they were employed on contract basis for a period of three years, therefore, the case relied upon by Additional Advocate General Sindh has no application. Shahid Hussain Khahro, Administrative Officer, E.D.O. (E) Matiari is present in person states that the petitioners have joined as P.S.T. but as they were beyond the sanctioned strength of 32 posts, they were not released salaries.??? In view of the fact that after issuance of appointment letters they were given posting as P.S.T. and have been rendering services since then they have at least became entitled for remuneration for the period for which they have worked. As regards the arguments of the petitioners' counsel that they were appointed on contract basis for a period of three years, we are of the opinion that their cases do not fall within the ambit of Service Tribunal.????? In case any of the petitioners do not fall with the first 32 posts to be determined in accordance with the marks, they obtained on merit then the department shall be at liberty to terminate their contracts. However, till then they cannot be deprived of their remuneration for services rendered. As regards wrongful issuance of appointment letters, the department shall also be at liberty to take appropriate legal action for recovery of the excess amount from the delinquent E.D.O., who without any authorization had issued appointment letters in excess of the sanctioned strength. We direct that petitioners be paid salaries for the entire period for which they have been working. Let the process of payment of salaries to the petitioners be completed by 31st July, 2010. With these directions, these petitions stand disposed of. H.B.T/I-19/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.