1998 PLP 2061 (SCMR)
KHALID JAVAID KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2061 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID JAVAID KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2061 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2061 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2061 (SCMR) (KHALID JAVAID KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Farooq Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 30th December, 1997.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Farooq Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 are members of the Punjab Local Council Service which is deemed to be civil service for the purposes of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with section 44 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. On these premises, it is vehemently argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and/or to suspend the transfer order passed by the competent Authority. Mr. Farooq Zaman, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/caveator submitted that the stay application has not been finally decided by the High Court and an application for vacation of stay order has already been moved by the petitioner before the learned Judge in Chambers. He further argued that the order of transfer impugned in the High Court by the petitioner was mala fide, inasmuch as, the petitioner in the first instance obtained a stay order from the Service Tribunal on 28th October, 1997 in respect of his transfer from Bahawalpur to Vehari and thereafter, by exerting political influence got himself transferred from Bahawalpur to Gujranwala.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 14‑11‑1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 26398 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑S. 44‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Employees of Local Council service deemed to be civil servants for purposes of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974‑‑ Transfer of employee of Local Council service‑‑‑High Court suspended transfer order of employee passed by Competent Authority‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Dispute raised by employee in Constitutional petition admittedly related to his transfer/posting being matter related to terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Such dispute would exclusively fall within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal in terms of Art. 212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Impugned order clearly indicated that High Court had not considered such aspect of matter before passing order in question‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal, and case was remanded to High Court with direction to decide question of its jurisdiction in first instance before passing any interim order‑‑‑Interim order already issued by High Court was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the interim order. dated 14-11-1997 passed in Civil Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 26398 of 1997 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court suspended the operation of transfer order dated 10-11-1997 passed by the Secretary, LG & RD Department/Chairman, Punjab Local Government Department transferring the petitioner from Bahawalpur to Gujranwala, as Municipal Engineer in Grade-18.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 are members of the Punjab Local Council Service which is deemed to be civil service for the purposes of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with section 44 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. On these premises, it is vehemently argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and/or to suspend the transfer order passed by the competent Authority. Mr. Farooq Zaman, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/caveator submitted that the stay application has not been finally decided by the High Court and an application for vacation of stay order has already been moved by the petitioner before the learned Judge in Chambers. He further argued that the order of transfer impugned in the High Court by the petitioner was mala fide, inasmuch as, the petitioner in the first instance obtained a stay order from the Service Tribunal on 28th October, 1997 in respect of his transfer from Bahawalpur to Vehari and thereafter, by exerting political influence got himself transferred from Bahawalpur to Gujranwala.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 arc civil servants for the purposes of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The dispute raised by respondent No.1 in the writ petition admittedly related to his transfer/posting which is a matter relating to terms and conditions of the service. Such disputes exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal as envisaged by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge in Chambers has not considered this aspect of the matter before passing the impugned order.
4. In view of the above, we convert this petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the High Court with the direction to decide the question of its jurisdiction in the first instance before passing any interim order. With the above observation the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. A.A./K-8/S Case remanded.