1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

6. Appeal No. 374/94 Madar Khan, Ex‑Chowkidar/Behishti‑cum Khakroob (BPS‑1) District Dir.

7. Appeal No. 375/94 Minaji‑ud‑Din, Ex‑Chowkidar/Behishti‑cum Khakroob, Livestock and Dairy Development District Dir.

8. Appeal No. 376/94 Hussain Ahmad, Ex‑Behishti‑cum‑Khakroob, Livestock and Dairy Development, Timergara.

9. Appeal No.397/94 Shah Zaman, Ex‑Behishti‑cum‑Khakroob, Livestock and Dairy Development, Mansehra.

10. Appeal No. 378/94 Alamgir, Ex‑Behishti (BPS‑1) Livestock and Dairy Development, Mardan. Appeal No. 379/94 Abdul Rehman, Ex‑Behishti‑cum‑Khakroob (Grade‑1) Livestock and Dairy Development, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar.

12. Appeal No. 380f94 Jan Nisar Khan, Ex‑Behishti‑cum‑Khakroob (Grade‑1) Livestock and Dairy Development, N:‑W.F.P.,Peshawar

13. Appeal No. 381/94 Shah Zool Khan, Ex‑Behishti‑cum‑Khakroob Livestock and Dairy Development, Peshawar‑‑APPELLANTS Versus

1. The Secretary Food, Agriculture, Livestock, Dairy Development and Cooperative .Department, Peshawar.

2. The Director, Livestock and Dairy Development; N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar.

3. The Assistant Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Peshawar.

4. The‑Finance Secretary, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar‑‑RESPONDENTS Facts of the case are that consequent upon the conversion of the Development Project into current budget (non‑development project) by the Finance Department vide Letter No. Bx/8‑A‑134/87/FD, dated 14‑5‑1994, 80 posts of Grade‑I staff (one in each dispensary) have been abolished with effect from 1‑6‑1994. Out of these 80 incumbents, 14 persons have instituted appeals in this Tribunal and the present appellant‑Mushraf Khan is one of them. The appellant instituted his appeal alleging that he was appointed vide Endst. No. 436‑39/1/4, dated Peshawar the 1‑3‑1993 by respondent No.3 and has performed his duty uptil 1‑6‑1994 and during this period no adverse entry has been made against‑ him. His services have been terminated with effect from 1‑6‑1994. vide Endst. No. 1148‑1183, dated Peshawar, the 30‑5‑1994 by respondent No.3 for no good grounds. The appellant submitted his departmental appeal to respondent No. 1 through his counsel on 27‑6‑1994 and waited for the statutory period for the reply but as no reply has been received, hence the present appeal. The grounds of appeal are that the termination order, mentioned in the heading of the appeal, is against law, facts and natural justice, therefore, not tenable that there is no adverse entry in the service record of the appellant and that he belongs to a poor family and it is not possible for him to maintain his family in this expensive age. That junior persons are still performing their duties while the service of the appellant have been terminated. In the prayer the appellant asked for setting aside the impugned order and reinstatement with all back benefits.

4. Respondents have been summoned by this Tribunal. They appeared through their representative/counsel and submitted reply, after which detailed arguments of Mian Rafiq‑ud‑Din, Advocate for appellant and Sher Muhammad Khan, Advocate (Government Pleader) for respondents have been heard, at length.

5. The termination of service of the present appellant as well as other 13 appellants is the result of the Finance Department Letter No.BX/8‑A 134/87/FD, dated 14‑5‑1994 by which the developmental project has ‑been converted into current budget (non‑developmental) and as a result 80' posts of Grade‑1 staff became surplus and their services have been terminated by the respondent department with effect from 1‑6‑1994. The service of the appellant was purely temporary which could be terminated at any time without any notice and as far as the reasons are concerned those are the conversion of the developmental project into non‑developmental one. Out of 80 persons, 14 have challenged the termination order. Apparently there seem no illegality or any mala fide on the part of the respondent department regarding the termination of the services of the appellant as there are no funds available in the current budget by the Finance Department. Moreover, as the services were purely on temporary basis as is clear from the appointment order it could be terminated by the department as and when required. As far as the allegation of the appellant that junior officials have been retained, nothing can be proved on the record to support this allegation. Moreover, no pick and choose as apparent from the record of the respondent department. One of the objection of the appellant is that the designation of the Chowkidar is not mentioned in the impugned order‑which pertains to Ubadur Rehman but this objection holds no ground as the impugned order has clearly stated that "80 posts of Grade‑1 staff have been abolished " so Chowkidar, Behishti and Khakroob all comes in Grade‑I staff. As no mala fide or any illegality is apparent from the impugned order, therefore, the appeal has got no legal force which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs and similarly 13 connected Appeals Nos. 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 and 381 of 1994 are also dismissed, with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the record. H.B.T./197/N.‑W.F.P. Appeal dismissed.