1973 PLP 517 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The respondent was employed as a temporary Computor under petitioner No. 2, by letter No. 5054/ 35‑EG dated the 14th June 1958. On the 6th July 1964, the peti tioner No. 2 terminated the services of respondent with effect from the 31st July 1964. In the beginning, the respondent filed a civil suit challenging the order of the termination of his service, but withdrew it on the 18th December 1965. He later on, filed a Writ Petition No. 525 of 1966. The High Court, by judgment dated the 22nd February 1972, has accepted the writ petition and set aside tae order of termination of service of the respondent dated the 6th July 1964. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order. Mr. Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the respondent was appointed by the Director, Irrigation Research Institute, Lahore, on the 14th June 1958. According to the learned counsel, the letter of appointment clearly lays down that the post was purely temporary to be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice in writing. His contention is that the finding of the High court that the respondent was posted against a permanent post and his appointment, though temporary, was for an indefinite duration and, therefore, could not be treated as temporary service is not based on the proper appreciation of the material on the record. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that the finding of the High Court is correct. The plea of the respondent that he was not in fact, a temporary but a regular employee, is supported by the annual report of the year 1959, Vol. I of the Irrigation Research Institute, West Pakistan, Lahore, wherein the list of the staff in the Irrigation Research Institute during the year 1959 has been published. At page IV of the Introductory Part, under the heading, `Com putor (Regular)' the name of the respondent is shown at item No.

6. The Computors who were work‑charges, have been shown separately. The learned Judges of the High Court have also relied on the circumstance that the pay of the Computors (Regular), was sanctioned by the Accountant‑General and not by Director of the Institute as was done in the case of persons employed against charges posts. In our opinion, this material is quite sufficient to show that the respondent was posted against a permanent post and though his appointment was temporary, it was for a indefinite period. According to the view of the High Court, in such circumstances, the respondent was entitled to show‑cause notice under Article 177 of the Constitution. In this connection, it will be noticed that the High Court has also recorded the concession of the learned counsel for the State appearing in the High Court that in view of the pronounce ment of this Court in Abdul Majid v. Mushaffa Ahmad (PLD1965SC208) and Miss Nasim Jahan Naim v. General Manager (PLD1968SC112), he could not support the stand of the petitioner that the respondent's service could be dispensed with in the manner in which it had been done. In view of this concession, the High Court was perfectly justified in allowing the writ petition. No other argument has been advanced. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.