1994SCMR2017 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Discharge from service on the ground of having become surplus‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Authority could not controvert the fact that in appointment letter issued to civil servant, there was not mention that he was appointed against a temporary post or that he could be discharged from service at any time‑‑‑Fact that civil servant was a regular employee could not be controverted ‑‑‑Finding of Service Tribunal holding that civil servant was a` regular employee and reinstating him in service with all back benefits was subject to no exception‑‑‑Order passed by Service Tribunal did not justify interference therein‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Mumtaz Ali Mirza, Deputy Attorney‑General and Ch. Akhtar AA Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1993. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against order dated 11‑5‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by Anwar Khan respondent was accepted and the order dated 10‑5‑1992, passed by the petitioner No. 3 discharging him from service was set aside. In consequence the respondent was reinstated in service with all back benefits.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that Anwar Khan respondent was appointed as Overseer,. Grade‑I, E&M, in the Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar, on 10‑11‑1985, against an existing vacancy. He was to remain on probation for one year extendable either before or after its termination for a further period not exceeding six months. He was also considered fit for retention in service by order dated 3‑11‑1986, passed by the competent authority. On the basis of his performance he was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia for a period of three years. After completing his assignment in the foreign county, he returned to Pakistan and reported for duty on 6‑1‑1992. He, however, was not allowed to resume duty, instead he was discharged from service on 10‑5‑1992, on the ground that he had become surplus. Anwar Khan represented against the aforesaid order of his discharge from service but of no avail.

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was accepted vide impugned order dated 11‑5‑1993, and he was reinstated in service with all back benefits. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the respondent was a temporary employee having no lien against a substantive post, the order of his discharge from service was validly passed by the competent authority. He, however, could not controvert the fact that in the appointment letter issued to the respondent there was no mention that he was appointed, against a temporary post or that h6 could be discharged from service at any time. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General was unable to show either from the appointment letter or from a letter indicating his fitness for retention in service, that he was not a regular employee. The finding of the learned Federal Service Tribunal holding the respondent a regular employee and reinstating him in service with all back benefits is subject to no exception. In our view this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal.

5. In the result, we find no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. A.A./F‑296/S Petition dismissed.