Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASIMULLAH VS Respondent: BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 418
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sajjad Ali Shah and Wali Muhammad Mian, JJ
NASIMULLAH
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE, N: W.F.P. and 2 others
Civil Petition No. 204 of 1993, decided on 12th October, 1993.
(On appeal from the judgment of the N: W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar dated 23‑12‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 130 of 1992)
North‑West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act (II of 1987)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 212(3)‑‑‑Appointment of civil servant on ad hoc basis‑‑‑Entitlement to Regularization‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether case of civil servant was covered by S. 3, North West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1987, so as to entitle him to regularisation of his services.
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th October 1993.
JUDGMENT
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑Petitioner claims that he joined service as Patwari in the year 1961 and was selected as Qanungo in 1971 and his appointment as such was regularised in 1976. In 1978 he was appointed as Naib‑Tehsildar on ad hoc basis but his appointment is not regularised while in the meantime his juniors have been promoted. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to regularisation of service as he has been holding ad hoc appointment before 20th September, 1986 as is envisaged under section 3 of N.‑W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987.
2. On the other hand Service Tribunal has held as is claimed by official respondents that petitioner is not an ad hoc appointee against the post of Naib Tehsildar but was promoted on temporary basis as stop‑gap arrangement and his promotion could not be regularised as he was not considered fit on account of patchy record. Petitioner also claims that his case is analogous to that of Mr. Muhammad Nihar, ad hoc Tehsildar, whose service was ordered to be regularised under section 3 of the abovementioned Act by the Service Tribunal and against that order petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court (C.P. No. 209‑P of 1991) titled as Commissioner, Peshawar Division and others v. Muhammad Nihar, Naib‑Tehsildar, which has been dismissed vide order dated 18‑5‑1992.
3. Leave is granted to consider whether case of the petitioner is covered by section 3 of the Act mentioned above.
AA./N‑346/S Leave granted.