2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN AERONAUTICAL COMPLEX,
| Citation | 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Gulbaz Khan, Chairman and Nasim Sabir Syed, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN AERONAUTICAL COMPLEX, |
| Primary Law | (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (b) Locus poenitentiae |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (b) Locus poenitentiae as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Gulbaz Khan, Chairman and Nasim Sabir Syed, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN AERONAUTICAL COMPLEX,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasir Saeed Sheikh for Appellant.
- M. Aslam Uns, Federal Counsel for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1998.
- 3. The respondents have taken the plea that the Director‑General, PAC, is the appointing authority and D.P.D. Secretary is the appellate authority. It was contended that the appeal is incompetent as no departmental appeal or representation has been filed. It was brought to our notice that the appellants in a joint petition requested the President of Pakistan to intervene in the matter. The reply given by the President's Office was that your case is of judicial nature and so if you want you can approach the competent Court for getting .justice so that the Court can issue necessary order in the light of the law and rules in the matter. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that actually it was the President of Pakistan who was the appointing authority and only the powers had been delegated to the D.G., P.A.C. and D.P.D. Secretary. It was vehemently argued that a delegated exercises only those powers which are delegated to it and not beyond that. Secondly it was argued that the President's Office had given the advice after considering the matter in detail and so it can be treated as a departmental appeal. Counsel for the department also took the plea that a joint appeal is not permissible under the law. We have considered this matter and are of the view that the President Office has not given its finding on the joint appeal by saying it was incompetent. The President Office had only conveyed that the appeal be filed before the proper forum. So this objection is overruled alongwith the objection that the appeal to the President was not an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority, because in view of advice from Establishment Division the President becomes the Appellate Authority.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4
Federal Public Service Commission (Regularisation) Rules, 1978, R. 3
Regularisation of services
Fifteen employees, out of whom thirteen were of Armed Forces Personnel, working equivalent to posts of B-16 in Armed Forces and other two were civilians, were recruited in B.P.S 16 without advertisement in the press and without approval of Federal Public Service Commission
Ministry of Defence was advised through a letter to revoke said irregular appointments forthwith and furnish, necessary requisition to Federal Public Service Commission
Ministry of Defence on receipt of said letter took up the matter for regularization of services of employees considering their level of experience, very high technical skill and humanitarian issue, but Authority concerned decided to revoke irregular appointments
Held, selection of employees was made by High Powered Committee on temporary basis but the posts were permanent and Department was persistently pressing for regularisation of employees being satisfied with their experience, skill and utility in factory
Thirteen Armed Forces Personnel who were equivalent to B-16 in Armed forces were excluded from appearance in test and interview before Federal Public Service Commission, could be regularised
Even otherwise all employees having been serving since long, principle of locus poenitentiae and doctrine of reasonable expectation had created a vested right in them after such a long service with devotion, experience and extra satisfaction of their superiors
Two civil employees were also directed by Service Tribunal to be regularized immediately expecially because services of such-like employees in two other projects under Ministry of Defence had already been regularised.
Doctrine of locus poenitentiae and doctrine of reasonable expectation-- Application.
Judgment & Decree
to be approved later by the Goyernment for the Project. (b) To recruit, appoint, promote Full powers subject to (i) or to have disciplinary the provision of the powers in respect of all prescribed/to be prescribed civilian posts in NPS 1‑16 recruitment rules and other established vide.M/O orders regulating the Defence Letter Nos.92/75 recruitment, promotion and (l 201)/ 11 /DMP/(Air) dated discipline as laid down by 13‑5‑1975 and No. 1801 the Government in Civil dated 8‑4‑1976 according to Servants (Appointment the induction plans given in Promotion and Transfer) the said letters and any future Rules, ‑1973 and establishment that is to be Government Servants approved later by the (E&D) Rules, 1973 and (ii) Government for the Project. the terms and conditions of service being not inconsistent with those specified in Civil Servants Act, 1973. The aforesaid delegation of powers shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) Notwithstanding the delegation of powers under this letter the Government may exercise all or any of these powers either generally or in any particular case or class of cases. (b) Director‑General Aeronautical Projects or Project Director (P‑751)/Managing Director Aircraft Manufacturing Factory shall not exercise any of the powers delegated to him under this letter in a manner which may not be consistent with any order which have been or may hereafter be issued by the Government. (c) Director‑General Aeronautical Projects or Project Director (P‑75 l)/Managing Director Aircraft Manufacturing Factory shall not delegate any of the power delegated to him under this letter to any officer subordinate to him except with the prior consent of the Government. (d) The expenditure is met from within the establishment cost of the sanctioned estimates of .the Project and subject to budget provisions. (e) The posts are regarded as essential for which full justification is available. It was asserted that according to this notification the Director‑General, Aeronautical Projects had been given specific powers to create temporary civilian posts in NPS‑1 to 16 according to the equivalence prevalent in the PAF/Pak Army against the sanctioned regular posts and the Director‑General was given full powers to recruit appoint, promote or to have disciplinary powers in respect of all civilian posts in NPS‑1 to
16. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand pointed out that the learned counsel for the appellant was only relying on the left side of the notification whereas the exercise of the powers delegated was subject to the prescribed recruitment rules and other orders regulating the recruitment. It was emphasized that by not advertising the posts in the Press and by not getting the approval of the FPSC gross irregularities have been committed and this is why .the Establishment Division has ordered that their services be immediately terminated. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand referred to FPSC Regularization Rules; 1978. In the schedule which refers to Rule 3(a) the posts excluded from the purview of the Commission have been mentioned wherein it has been laid down that in the Defence Production Division the posts in the Pakistan Ordnance Factory and Projects P‑751 will be excluded. Reference was also made to Rule 3 of these Rules of the F.P.S.C. It has been laid down that Commission shall conduct test and examinations for recruitment to civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation in BPS‑16 or above other than the posts as laid down in clause (e) of this rule to be filled by the employment or re‑employment of or have been officers of the Armed Forces of Pakistan and hold persons who are or have held such posts therein as are declared by the President to be equivalent to the posts to b0 so filled. As far as the Armed Personnel are concerned the following details have been given about the ranks held in the Armed Forces before induction to the Kamra Factory:‑‑ (1) Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Ex‑Warrant Officer. (2) Mr. Ghulam Rasool, Ex‑Chief Warrant Officer. (3) Mr. Zafar Ahmad, Ex‑Chief Warrant Officer. (4) Mr. Noor Muhammad, Ex‑Warrant Officer. (5) Mr. Muhammad Nazir, Ex‑Warrant Officer. (6) Mr.. Karam Dad Khan, Ex‑Chief Warrant Officer. (7) Mr. Muhammad Nazir, Ex‑Chief Warrant Officer. (8) Raja Muhammad Altaf, Ex‑Chief Warrant Officer. (9) Mr. Abdul Aziz, Ex‑Naib Subedar. (10) Mr. Tariq Javed Toor, Ex‑Master Warrant Officer. (11) Mr. Hafeezur Rahman, Ex‑Master Warrant Officer (12) Mr. Muhammad Arif, Ex‑Chief Warrant Officer (13) Mr. Abdul Khaliq; Master Warrant Officer. The Warrant Officers and Chief Warrant Officers are equivalent to B‑16 in the Civil Service in PAF. Similar is the case with the Subedar and Naib‑Subedar in the Army. So as far as these Army Personnel are concerned we are of the considered opinion that they were excluded from the appearance in the test or interviewer before the FPSC. Reference is also made to PLD 1965 SC 106 wherein it has been held that the letter by the Government cannot replace rules. However, letters by Establishment Division and the Ministry are of no legal consequence as far as the exemption from appearing before the FPSC is concerned. Coming to the civilian employees Mr. Saleem Akhtar is B.Sc. (Hon.) with Arboriculture/Agriculture Forestry with three years' experience; Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed is B.Sc. with Chemistry Physics and has three years' experience of Rubber Synthetic Industry. Mr. Muhammad Arif, Supply Assistant is a Graduate' with five years' practical experience in store keeping and management procedure. From the details about the civilian recruitment, it is ‑quite evident that as far as Mr. Saleem Akhtar and Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad are concerned, both are B.Sc. and M.Sc. respectively. Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad also is with three years' experience of Rubber Synthetic Industry which is very relevant experience in Aeronautical Engineering. These civilians were under the rules to appear before the FPSC because there is no exclusion in their case. As far as the Armed Forces Personnel are concerned they should be regularized immediately in the light of the observations already made. We are also of the positive view that the principle of locus poenitentiae and the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations had created a vested right after such a long service with devotion, expertise and the entire satisfaction of the superiors. Kamra complex was one of the great leaps .in the technological field and at the time of its establishment the management was looking around in all fields for suitable persons to be recruited to make this experience succeed which ultimately turned out to be a centre of excellence. The management is full of praises for technical skill of these persons and their devoted services. After all it is not the fault of the employees that their cases were 'not sent to the FPSC or they were not advertized in Press. The services of such persons in two other projects under the Ministry of Defence Production have already been regularized. We fail to understand as to why this exception.
5. Considering all these things we are of the opinion that all fifteen of them should be immediately regularized. H.B.T./351/FST Appeal accepted