2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others Versus ARIF HUSSAIN and others
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J., Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others Versus ARIF HUSSAIN and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J., Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others Versus ARIF HUSSAIN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 3-6-2006 passed in Appeals Nos.476(R)(C.S.) of 2003 to 487(R)(C.S.) of 2003).
Art. 212(3)
Posts against which respondents were appointed and had been continuously performing their duties as temporary labour on yearly basis, were permanent
Respondents having rendered continuous service for considerable period, were entitled to claim regularization of their services
Service Tribunal, in circumstances had rightly regularized services of respondents
Impugned order being unexceptionable, would admit no interference. Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100 rel.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Listed petitions have been filed against the judgment of Federal ' Service Tribunal, dated 3-6-2006.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the cases are that respondents were appointed in BPS-1 in the Electric Traction Department, Pakistan Railways, Khanewal, during the period from 1983 to 1999 and were assigned the duty of filling water in the coaches of trains at Khanewal Junction. They have been continuously performing this duty as temporary labour on yearly basis. The posts against which they were appointed, were certainly permanent as the railway department, as per narration of facts in the impugned judgment, had admitted that posts occupied by them were permanent. The respondents having rendered continuous service as railway employees for a considerable period, approached the Federal Service Tribunal for regularization of their service and Tribunal having taken into consideration the Policy Letter No.831-E/132-XIV (Policy), dated 21-4-1985, allowed their appeals and while placing reliance on Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100, having given them the relief sought by them in the appeals, directed for their regularization. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents were not as such civil servants and having not acquired the status of civil servant in terms of section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, would have no right to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, therefore, their appeals were bound to be rejected in view of the judgment of this Court passed Civil Appeals Nos.792 to 816 of 2005. We are afraid, the employees of railways department are governed by their own statutory rules, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel may not be attracted to exclude them from the definition of civil servant. Besides, it is evident from the record that respondents were working against the permanent posts and according to policy of railways department, they were entitled to claim regularization, therefore, the Service Tribunal having taken into consideration this aspect of the cases, as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan (ibid), had rightly allowed the appeals filed by them and impugned judgment being unexceptionable, would admit no interference. These petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave is refused. H.B.T./C-23/SC Petitions dismissed.