1986 PLP 1020 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks review of our judgment, dated 29‑2‑1984 on the ground that Federation's Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 64‑11/84 had not been properly disposed of after affording him a hearing. The subject‑matter of that petition for leave to appeal was a claim made by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal that his suspension while in service from 19‑6‑1979 and its continuance after 19‑9‑1979 to 17‑9‑1981 was without lawful authority. On his service appeal (No.91‑R/83) the Service Tribunal had held that he was a civil servant and as such unless the sanction was obtained as required under the rules within three months of the period of suspension, the period of suspension could not be extended. It was also held that his case was not covered by the Population Welfare Planning Programme Ordinance XIV of 1981 and it was directed that he shall not be dealt with under that Ordinance. The Tribunal also ordered that in another appeal by the petitioner (Appeal No. 5(R)/82) in which direction been given that his case shall be referred to the Federal Public Service Commission stood superseded by this order. By the impugned judgment it was held by this Court that the petitioner could not claim to be a civil servant till he was appointed under the Ordinance (Ordinance XIV of 1981) after reference to the Federal Public Service Commission. His case was, on a statement made by the Deputy Attorney‑General, allowed to be referred to the Public Service Commission for determining his suitability for absorption and appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that while allowing the other appeal of the respondent setting aside the order of his reinstatement he has been denied the relief which should have been afforded to him. The question of law involved in the petition filed by so many others including the Federal Government and the petitioner was whether the petitioner and those similarly affected could claim to be civil servants on a date prior to their induction into service in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Ordinance XIV of 1981. It was held that they could be deemed to be civil servants from a date in the past only after they had been selected and ht pointed under the Ordinance. As that had not happened in the case of the petitioner when he approached the Service Tribunal for relief against his suspension the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction, the petitioner being not then a civil servant, to deal with the question of his automatic reinstatement on account of improper extension of the period of suspension. It was on that view of the law that the Federation's petition was converted into appeal and allowed. Mr. M.S. Siddiqui, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, has contended before us that because the Government rules with regard to Efficiency and Discipline were made applicable, the petitioner was entitled to invoke its provisions for claiming automatic re‑instatement in service. The fact remains that the petitioner was not a civil servant on the findings of this Court in the impugned judgment at the time when he was suspended and his suspension period was extended. On that account he would not be entitled to invoke section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act for redress of his grievance from the Service Tribunal. Unfortunately, the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner all relate to constitutional petitions filed by persons who were not civil servants for enforcing their rights under statutory instruments. That feature alone distinguishes the case of the petitioner and such a relief could not be in fact granted by the Service Tribunal. There is no ground for review of the decision. The petition is dismissed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.