Ad hoc appointment meaning in Urdu | kia ad hoc employees permanent hu sakte hain.
Ad hoc meaning
"Ad hoc" is a Latin phrase that translates to "for this" in English. In a general sense, it is used to describe something created or done for a specific purpose or situation, rather than planned in advance.
"ایڈ ہاک" ایک لاطینی جملہ ہے جس کا ترجمہ میں "اس کے لیے" ہوتا ہے۔ عام معنوں میں، یہ کسی خاص مقصد یا صورت حال کے لیے بنائی گئی یا کی گئی کسی چیز کو بیان کرنے کے لیے استعمال کیا جاتا ہے، بجائے اس کے کہ پہلے سے منصوبہ بنایا گیا ہو۔
Ad hoc appointment meaning in Urdu.
An "ad hoc appointment" typically refers to a temporary or immediate appointment made for a specific, often urgent, purpose or task. It implies that the appointment is not part of a regular or pre-planned schedule but has been arranged on an as-needed basis to address a particular situation or requirement.
ایک "ایڈہاک اپوائنٹمنٹ" سے مراد عام طور پر کسی مخصوص، اکثر فوری، مقصد یا کام کے لیے کی گئی عارضی یا فوری ہوتی ہے۔ اس سے یہ ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ تقرری باقاعدہ یا پہلے سے طے شدہ شیڈول کا حصہ نہیں ہے بلکہ کسی خاص صورتحال یا ضرورت کو پورا کرنے کے لیے ضرورت کے مطابق ترتیب دی گئی ہے۔
 |
| Ad hoc appointment |
Ad hoc meaning in urdu
Ad hoc ka lafzi matlab hai kisi khas maqsad ke liye ya aarzi
Ad hoc meaning in English
" When necessary or needed"
Ad hoc sarkari mulazmeen ko kehte hain ke wo mulazmeen ju kisi emergency ki soorat main aarzi toor per
Rakhe jate hain
Following case main Lahore high court ne detail main ad hoc appointment ko discuss kia hai.
Writ petition main petitioner ne reinstate (bahali) mangi or permanent karne ki pray kia or tamam sharait per signature kiye.
Ad hoc ki banyad per petitioner 2010 main bharti hoa or aik saal ka agreement mila.
Yeh ke agreement main extension milti rahi or petitioner 2019 tak job karta raha.
Magar 2019 main mehkma ne overage qarar de kar nokri se farigh kar dia.
Jiss ke baad us ne 2 writ file kien or first writ main high court ne parties ko sun kar qanoon ke mutabaq faisla karne ka hukam dia
High court ne bht sari related judgements quote kien or bilaakhar writ kharaj kar di or qarar dia.
employee could not claim extension of the contract as a matter of right rather it was the
prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or
continue with the same by tending the contract."
11. Moreover, the judgment produced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be
relied upon being distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case as each and
every case has its own facts and circumstances.
12. In view of the above, the instant petition, being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed in
limine.
Jiss ke baad department ne written order qanoon ke mutabaq jari kar dia.
Or qara dia ke mulazam ad hoc ki banyad per bharti hoa tha. Or ab overage hu gia. Lihaza policy mehkma ki change hu chuki hai jiss ke mutabaq overage mulazam nahi rakh sakte.
Brief Story of the following case law
Following case main petitioner ad hoc ki banyad per bharti hoa . Or petitioner ne wo tamam sharait ko qabool kia or ad hoc ki banyad per wo koi right nahi rakhta permanent hone ka.
For more information call or Whatsapp (0324-4010279)
Judgement or case laws on ad hoc appointment.
2020 P L C (C.S.) 1398
[Lahore High Court]
Before Jawad Hassan, J
ZAKA ULLAH KHAN
Versus
SECRETARY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HEALTHCARE and others
Writ Petition No.36633 of 2020, decided on 19th August, 2020.
(a) Civil service---
----Contract appointment---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by respondent whereby
he was relieved from service on the basis of being over-age---Petitioner was appointed for a
period of one year as a stop gap arrangement---Such appointment did not confer any right on
the incumbent for regular appointment or to hold it for an indefinite period---Petitioner, at the
time of joining, had accepted all the terms and conditions of his ad hoc employment and
could not resile from the same at belated stage---Constitutional petition was dismissed in
limine.
Dr. Zaheer Iqbal and others v. Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others 2018
PLC (C.S.) 712 distinguished.
Shahzad Ghohar v. Government of Punjab and Aitchison College through its Board of
Governor 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note-1; Muhammad Mohsin Ismail v. Managing Director Punjab
Daanish Schools and 2 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 722; Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary,
Government of Punjab and 3 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 488 and Mubashar Majeed v. Province
of Punjab and 3 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 940 rel.
(b) Words and phrases---
----Stop-gap---Meaning.
Advance Law Lexicon 4th Edition, P.4615 and Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Twelth
Edition, P.1422 ref.
Malik Saleem Iqbal Awan for Petitioner.
Barrister Umair Niazi, Additional Advocate-General.
ORDER
JAWAD HASSAN, J.----The Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the
"Constitution") by challenging a quasi-judicial order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the
Respondent No.1/Secretary Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department pursuant to
directions issued in W.P.No.20509 of 2020 dated 30.04.2020. The Petitioner has also
challenged order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the aforesaid Respondent whereby he has
disallowed certain pharmacists to work in hospital being overaged.
2. Facts as narrated in the petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as Hospital
Pharmacist (BS-17) on ad-hoc basis for a period of one year vide order dated 25.02.2010 on
certain terms and conditions. His period of ad hoc employment was extended from time to
time and lastly it was extended w.e.f. 17.04.2019 to 12.03.2020. But subsequently vide the
impugned letter dated 12.03.2020 the Petitioner was relieved from service on the basis of
being over-age. The aforesaid order was assailed by the Petitioner through W.P.No.20509 of
2020 which was disposed of on 30.04.2020 with direction to decide the representation of the
Petitioner pursuant to which order dated 04.08.2020 was passed. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inter alia contended that the impugned orders are illegal
and unlawful; that the Petitioner has served for more than ten years and instead of
regularizing his service, he has been relieved by the authority without any legal justification;
that neither show-cause notice was given to the Petitioner nor opportunity of hearing was
provided to him; that fundamental rights of the Petitioner are being infringed which need
consideration of this Court. In order to support his contention, learned counsel has relied on
"Dr. Zaheer Iqbal and others v. Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others" (2018
PLC (C.S.) 712).
4. On the other hand, learned law officer vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds that
the Petitioner was employed on ad hoc basis and has no vested to be regularized or extension
of his contract period; that the Petitioner was treated as per terms and conditions of his
contract employment which he duly accepted at the time of appointment, therefore, now at
this stage he cannot deviate from the same.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Basically the Petitioner has impugned two orders dated 12.03.2020 and 04.08.2020. First
order relates to relieving of certain pharmacists from duties including the Petitioner being
over age under service rules whereas second order was passed pursuant to directions of this
Court. The argument of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner has
served 10 years of his service without any complaint or allegation in performance of his
duties therefore, he should be regularized by the Respondents instead of declaring him
overage. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No.1 in order dated 04.08.2020
observed that the Petitioner was granted ad hoc appointments on the basis of his performance
on yearly basis till 04.04.2019 and after expiry of his period of ad hoc appointment he was
relieved from service on 12.03.2020 due to being over-age for further appointment. It was
further observed that the appointment was purely on ad-hoc basis, offered while keeping in
view the provisions of Rule 22 of Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1974. The concluding portion of said order is reproduced hereunder:
"It is pertinent to mention here that Government of Punjab, Services and General
Administration Department (Regulation Wing) has Notified amendments in the Punjab
Health Department (General Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981 vide
No.SOR(S&GAD)1-11/2011 dated 07.09.2011, wherein the age limit for the appointment of
Pharmacists has been determined as 21-28 years with 05 years as general age relaxation. The
Petitioner is over aged now, therefore, was relieved from service vide letter dated 12.03.2020
as he does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as prescribed under Service Rules. Aggrieved by
the relieving orders, he obtained injunctive orders from Hon'ble Court on 21.05.2020 in
W.P.No.5929/2020 from Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, byMultan by concealing the fact
that relieving orders have already been issued on 12.03.2020. Thus, he Petitioner is hereby
relieved from service with immediate effect."
7. It evinces from the perusal of record that the Petitioner was appointed as Hospital
Pharmacist (BS-17) on ad hoc basis vide order dated 25.02.2010 for a period of one year
purely as a stop gap arrangement. As per Oxford dictionary, the expression 'stop-gap' means a
temporary way of dealing with a problem or satisfying a need. Advance Law Lexicon 4th
Edition, P. 4615 describes 'stop gap" in the following manner:
"if an appointment is made to meet the contingency on account of delay in completing the
process for regular recruitment to the post due to any reason and it is not possible to leave the
post vacant till then, such an appointment can appropriately be called as 'stop gap
arrangement".
According to Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Twelfth Edition, P. 1422, 'stopgap' means a
"temporary solution or substitute". The Courts have used the said term in a number of
judgments. It is a transitory arrangement or a temporary measure to meet the contingency
arising on account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to a post (due to
any reason), in order to prevent stand-still in the performance of public duties. Such an
appointment does not confer any right on the incumbent for regular appointment or to hold it
for indefinite period. In the present case, the Petitioner's ad hoc employment was extended
from time to time almost with same terms and conditions vide orders dated 14-3-2011, 15-3-
2012, 21-3-2013, 9-9-2014, 28-2-2015, 07-03-2016, 01-03-2017, 22-06-2018, 04.04.2019
and lastly on 18.03.2020 for a period from 17.04.2019 to 12.03.2020. The following Clauses
were mentioned in all appointment letters of extension, containing terms and conditions
which reflect as under:
Even if the post being offered to you continuous, the appointment is only for a period
mentioned above from the date of joining and shall automatically terminated on the expiry of
the said period or till the availability of a regular/selectee of the Punjab Service Commission,
whichever is earlier.
Notwithstanding the condition (i) above, the appointment is subject to termination at any
time.
The ad-hoc appointment will not confer any right for regular appointment to the same post
nor the service will count towards seniority.
The above Clauses explicitly show that the ad-hoc appointment is only for specific period
which shall automatically be terminated on the expiry of period, mentioned in appointment
letters and also the Petitioner will not confer any right of regular appointment meaning
thereby that the Petitioner has no vested right that his period of service be extended for
further period. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not brought on record to show that he
approached the concerned authority for seeking regularization during his service.
8. From the above facts and circumstances, I am of the
considered view that the Petitioner, at the time of joining, has accepted all the terms and
conditions of his ad-hoc employment, cannot resile from the same at belated stage. I see no
illegality or perversity in the impugned orders which have been passed in accordance with
law and therefore, cannot be interfered with. I am fortified my view seeking guidance from
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled "Shahzad
Ghohar v. Government of Punjab and Aitchison College through its Board of Governor"
(2018 PLC (C.S.) Note-1) in which it has been held as under:
"It was also made specifically clear that the Employment Contract does not confer on the
Appellant any claim/right to permanent employment in the College. In the above situation,
the Appellant has himself admitted all the terms and conditions of his Employment Contract,
he cannot claim his regularization from this Court rather has rightly been considered to be out
of service on the expiry of his contract employment as settled by the parties under the terms
of the Employment Contract"
9. This Court in case titled "Muhammad Mohsin Ismail v. Managing Director Punjab Daanish
Schools and 2 others" (2018 PLC (C.S.) 722) has also held as under:
"The Respondents have invoked clause-4(b), terminated the services of the Petitioner with
immediate effect entitling the Petitioner to receive one month's pay in lieu of the quit service
as per terms and conditions, therefore, assertions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
no notice has been served upon the Petitioner, cannot sustain. The law on this point has been
settled by the apex Court of the country in the cases of "Government of Balochistan,
Department of Health through Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar and 43
others" (2005 SCMR 642) and "Major (R) Nisar Ali v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission
and another" (2004 PLC (C.S.) 758)."
10. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled "Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary,
Government of Punjab and 3 others" (2017 PLC (C.S.) 488) has held as under:
"the employee, after accepting terms and conditions of his contract employment had
submitted his joining report. Service of such employee could be terminated without assigning
any reason. Employee had no right to claim extension in his contract period as a vested right.
Behaviour of employee remained unsatisfactory towards his superior which resulted into his
termination."
In Case titled "Mubashar Majeed v. Province of Punjab and 3 others" (2017 PLC (C.S.) 940)
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also held that
"employee could not claim extension of the contract as a matter of right rather it was the
prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or
continue with the same by tending the contract."
11. Moreover, the judgment produced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be
relied upon being distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case as each and
every case has its own facts and circumstances.
12. In view of the above, the instant petition, being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed in
limine.
Comments
Post a Comment