1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ Ad hoc appointee on stopgap arrangement basis‑‑Termination of service challenged before Tribunal‑‑Held: Appellant's ad hoc appointment being conditional and he being hardly a person to be retained in service due to unsatisfactory performance, order of termination was fully justified. Haji Mushtaq Ahmad Aqil for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad son of Mian Allah Ditta, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the .Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur, Superintending Engineer Mailsi Circle Multan, Executive Engineer Canals Islam Division, Pullah, District Bahawalpur, Executive Engineer Canals Lodhran Division, Multan, Sub‑Divisional Officer, Shergarh Sub‑Division, Mallsi, Deputy Collector, Canals, Islam Division, Tehsil Mailsi Bungalow Canals and Messrs Munir Hussain, Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Mustafa, Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Sharif as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 31‑3‑1982, whereby the services of the appellant as Patwari have been discontinued, be set aside.

3. The case is still at the stage of preliminary hearing and meanwhile, report was called from the respondent No.3, which has been received and placed on record.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as have perused the comments so submitted by respondent No.3 in which entire history of the case has been given and have also gone through the memo. of appeal, carefully.

5. The fact of the matter is that the appellant being a younger brother of a Singaller Sultan Ahmad, was employed in the Irrigation Department on compassionate ground and afforded seasonal job opportunities by the officers of adjoining Irrigation Divisions. In this manner, the appellant kept on working as seasonal Gauge Reader, Telephone Attendant against leave vacancy and ultimately was afforded an opportunity to serve as Patwari on ad hoc basis for a period of 179 days till the availability of regular Patwari, whichever was earlier. He was made clear that this offer will not conferred any right and was to be terminated at any time without any notice. The appellant's work and conduct during the period under appointment was adversely commented upon by all of his officers. Due to poor working of the appellant, he was recommended for transfer on 22‑3‑1982, by Sub‑Divisional Officer Shergarh and Deputy Collector Islam, and did not show any sign of improvement, his services were discontinued w.e.f. 31‑3‑1982 (A.N.)

6. In view of the above history of the case, I hardly find it a prima facie case to be admitted to regular hearing as the appellant's status was that of ad hoc appointee who was clearly told, that his services were liable to be terminated without any notice. While going through the performance of the appellant as commented by his superiors he is hardly a person to be retained in service, therefore, the impugned order passed against him seems to be fully justified. In these circumstances I dismiss this case as being without any merit at this stage of preliminary hearing. M.I. Appeal dismissed.