Extension of contract

2018 PLD 20 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

R. 104-ARoyalty, collection ofExtension of contract

Petitioner was aggrieved of extension granted by authorities in favour of respondent with regard to collection of royalty

Validity

Collection of royalty, as per R.104-A of Balochistan Mines and Mineral Rules, 2002 was to be made through open auction by inviting bids through respective Auction Committees on expiration of term of contract

No extension on any premises or pretext could be made nor any refund proportionate bid money was permissible

High Court directed authorities to auction contract for collecting royalty for leftover contractual period and set aside order in question

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2017 PLC(CS) 940 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityContract appointmentExtension of contractScopeTermination of contract employeeScope

Single Judge of High Court had disposed of constitutional petition with the observation that termination of petitioner on the basis of allegations contained in the show cause notice was illegal and his termination would be considered termination simpliciter

Validity

Contract of petitioner employee stood completed on 09-02-2011

Petitioner employee could not claim extension of the contract as a matter of right rather it was prerogative of competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or continue with the same by extending the contract

Petitioner was a contract employee and was governed by the principle of "master and servant"

Petitioner employee did not have any vested right to seek extension of the contract

Constitutional petition in such like cases was not maintainable

No stigma remained on the petitioner employee

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 CLCN 185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionAuction of propertyExtension of contract

Petitioner obtained contract in an open auction for a Rest House for a period of one year and after the completion of the same he applied for extension of contract which was not considered

Contention of petitioner was that authorities wanted to give contract to a person of their own choice

Validity

Property in question was owned by government department which originally belonged to the public/State

State being a virtual entity exercised its authority through the public functionaries

Public functionary was bound to protect and preserve transparency and to ensure the maximum gain for the public exchequer whenever a right belonging to the public/State was going to be alienated

Equal opportunity to all potential competitors should be extended who were intended to acquire property under contract on lease and license

Public functionaries deriving authority from or under the law were required to act justly, fairly, equitably, reasonably, without any element of discrimination and squarely within the parameters of law

No obligatory clause for extension of said contract for any further period existed in the agreement

Authorities had adopted just, fair and a proper procedure/course by issuing auction notice through publication in newspapers to ensure transparency and maximum gain

Petitioner was not entitled for any special privilege or preferential treatment and he should come in competition by participating auction proceedings if he intended to take subject property on contract

No unjustified and arbitrary action or event that had happened at an earlier time could be given perpetuity

Two wrongs did not make a right

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

2014 PLC(CS) 284 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceContractual appointmentExtension of contractScopePetitioners had been appointed on contract after retirementAuthority refused for renewal of contract for further period due to unsatisfactory physical healthPetitioners were physically and mentally declared as fit by the Medical officerNon-extension of contract did not amount to violation of fundamental rightsCompetent Authority had found the petitioners unsuitable for the renewal of their contract appointmentContract employee had no right whatsoever for his appointment or extension whatever the case might be

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2014 PLC(CS) 284 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25 & 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceContractual appointmentExtension of contractAuthority had refused to extend the contract of the petitioners while contract of certain employees were extendedPlea of discriminatory treatmentValidityAuthority had extended the contractual appointment of those persons who had not attained the age of superannuationPetitioners were given contractual appointment after superannuationCase of petitioners was distinguishable from other employeesQuestion of mala fide and discriminatory treatment was not made out, in circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed.