2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Rao Javed‑ul‑Haq Khan for Appellant. Khadim Hussain Sindhu, District Attorney for Respondent. Muhammad Ashraf, Superintendent, Department Representative for Respondent No.3. Muhammad Naseem Akhtar, Deputy Director Agriculture, Jhang, Departmental Representative. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2003. Abdul Hameed, Ex‑Water Management Officer in the Office of Director‑General Agriculture. On Farm Water Management, has called in question order, dated 10‑12‑2000 passed by Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, whereby his services were terminated upon the closure of the Punjab Private Sector Ground Water Development Project, with effect from 31‑12‑2001. His departmental representation to respondent No.2 having not being attended to within the statutory period of 90 days, recourse has been made through the instant appeal to challenge the order of the Authority.

2. Appellant was inducted in service as Water Management Officer in BS‑17 on ad hoc basis by respondent No. l on 5‑7‑1988, the tenure of ad hoc appointment from time to time was extended by the respondents. On the closure of the Punjab Private Sector Ground Water Development Project, certain posts were abolished with effect from 31‑12‑2001 and consequently the appellant who was working on ad hoc basis on the principle of last come, first go was terminated from service with immediate effect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no complaint/inquiry against the appellant when his services were terminated in an unceremonious manner having no respect for his 14 years unblemished service. It was further submitted that rank discrimination has been practised inasmuch as Muhammad Abdullah, Muhammad Arshad and Abdul Ghaffar all Water Management Officers appointed on ad hoc basis, junior to the appellant, have retained but the appellant despite having entered service earlier was axed, thus violating the well‑known principle of equality enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Learned District Attorney on the other hand has supported the order and stated that the appellant was not shown the door because of any misconduct or inefficiency, rather the project came to an end.

4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. I must at the outset observe that an ad hoc appointee has to remain in office either for a specific period or till regular appointee takes his place Ad hoc appointment does not confer any right on any incumbent to continue endlessly. However, question in the present appeal may not be of the nature discussed above, the decisive point is whether ad hoc appointees all being Water Management Officers appointed later than the appellant are allowed to continue in service whereas, head of the appellant, who was senior to them, has been placed on the chopping block. On the last date of, hearing i.e. 12‑5‑2003, the departmental representatives on behalf of the respondents were asked to specifically seek instructions from the respondents whether Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, Muhammad Arshad, Abdul Ghaffar, all Water Management Officers were appointed on ad hoc basis and if so, whether before or after the appointment of the appellant and further were they still continuing in service. The answer of the departmental representative in writing supplemented by a chart, shows appellant to have been inducted on ad hoc basis on 23‑7‑1988, Mr. Muhammad Abdullah on 23‑10‑1990. Mr. Muhammad Arshad on 3‑11‑1990 and Mr. Abdul Ghaffar on 11‑6‑1988. Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, Muhammad Arshad and Abdul Ghaffar are still in service on ad hoc basis. It was stated that the appellant was terminated from service because `he could not furnish proof of his appointment for the period from 30‑4‑1992 to 29‑10‑1992, meaning thereby that appointment after 29‑10‑1992 on ad hoc basis till the impugned order created a break in service, therefore, he ranked junior to Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arshad appellant on the other hand briskly produced a letter from his file showing that on 4‑5‑1992, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department on the approval of the Chief Minister Punjab extended the ad hoc service of the appellant as Water Management Officer for six months or till the availability of a regular incumbent whichever was earlier, with effect from 30‑4‑1992. The letter was given to the departmental representative who could not deny its authenticity. The only argument presented by the respondents was therefore knocked out. Either the principle of last come first go has to be applied or all ad 41oc appointees have to meet the same fate which was destined for the appellant. Appellant on the 'showing of the respondents themselves, ranks senior to Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arshad, also ad 'hoc Water Management Officers. The upshot of the discussion is therefore that the appeal is accepted, order dated 10‑12‑2002 by respondent No.1 is set aside and quashed. Appellant shall be taken back in service and shall continue in the same capacity with complete benefits. The department may, if they so desire, either follow the principle enunciated or equal treatment will be given to all Water Management Officers. H.B.T./125/PST Appeal accepted.