2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(ii) All appointment orders issued in favour of the respondents be set aside. (iii) All respondents be restrained to issue any such appointment order in view even under the colour of Central Act XIII of 1992. (iv) Any other relief deemed suited to the peculiar facts of this case be also afforded to the petitioner."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim that they are highly qualified persons and all in the employment of the State Bank of Pakistan and due to the excessive surplus staff their promotions have been blocked for years. It is also stated that the Promotion Policy of Officers such as the petitioners is governed by Instructions dated 22‑12‑1981 which have force of law. On 28‑7‑1992 Central Act XIII of 1992 was enforced as the title of "Pakistan Banking and Finance Service Commission Act, 1992. Respondents Nos.3 to 11 were recruited directly. It is also stated that the direct recruitments cannot be made and the posts are to be filled by promotion. The respondents are acting in mala fide manner and 618 Officers in the respondent State Bank are awaiting their promotion. The respondents were directed to submit parawise comments and report which has been submitted by them and the counter‑affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in which the allegations levelled in this petition have been denied and it has been stated that the promotions and direct recruitments of Officers of Grade‑II are regulated by Regulation 6(ii)(a) of the State Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Regulation framed under section 54(2)(j) of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 by the Central Board of the Bank with the approval of the Federal Government. The said statuton Regulation 6(ii)(a) reads as follows:‑‑ "Appointment of Officers Class I and II on the General Side shall be made by promotion from lower grads and by direct recruitment in such proportion as the Central Board may prescribe." and it has been stated specifically that the vacancies are being filled in accordance with law and Rules and the allegations are denied.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Promotions Policy dated 22‑12‑1981 though was not Statutory Rules but has the status of Rules and could be enforced similar Rules dated 28‑7‑1992 are fully applicable and the State Bank of Pakistan has not followed the Rules. and is, filling the posts through direct recruitment which is contrary to rule 17 of 1992 wherein it has been mentioned that no officer can be appointed directly and the Officers shall be appointed through promotion. It is further contended that 618 Bank employees are awaiting for their promotion but the direct recruitments have caused great hardships to them. It is also contended that the Bank Authorities are not treating the petitioners in accordance with law. It is further contended that section 2‑A of Federal Service Tribunals Act does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court, as the issues asising in this writ petition do not fall within the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal. The omnibus objections for bar of jurisdiction is being taken as the individuals grievances are not asked for redressal, hence the writ petition is maintainable.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State Bank has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition that the State Bank Employees are Civil Servants and the matter relates to the terms and conditions of their service and there is specific bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is further contended that the posts can be filled through promotion and through direct appointments on the basis of the ratio which is allowed by the Central Board of the Bank. Learned counsel ‑for the State Bank has also‑denied the allegations levelled in this writ petition and has taken the stand that due to this writ petition, the petitioners Nos. l to 14 had availed the golden handshake scheme and has received his benefits and has been retired. The remaining petitioners Nos.15 to 21 have been promoted to the higher posts, and the writ petition has become infructuous as the relief claimed by them is not the alive issue. It is further contended that prior to this similar issue has been challenged in the Karachi High Court through Writ Petition No.816 which was dismissed as having no merits by the Division Bench and this judgment was challenged in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No.K‑61 of 1963 which was also dismissed and the decision was upheld of Karachi High Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, documents and the comments filed in this writ petition. The first question which requires to be decided is that whether the relief prayed in this writ petition can be granted to the petitioners who are admittedly employees of the State Bank of Pakistan and the employees of State Bank have become civil servants due to the induction of section 2‑A in the Federal Service Tribunal Act whereby the employees of the Finance Institutions and the Autonomous Bodies have been declared as civil servants for the purpose of jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal regarding their terms of service. The prayer made in this writ petition relates to terms and conditions of service and the petitioners can challenge the same before the Federal Service Tribunal individually and collectively as well. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition that they have collectively challenged the action of the respondent‑Bank which cannot be challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal, this contention cannot be accepted as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service and if appointments are not made in accordance with law and are made in contravention of the Rules being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this question can be challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal. Article 212 does not become ineffective if some petition is filed collectively by some of the civil servant. There is no mention that the bar contained under the above said Article does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in such‑like cases. Even otherwise writ petition is being pressed for the benefit of the other persons who are not party in the writ petition as the counsel for‑the State Bank has categorically stated that the petitioners Nos. l to 14 have since left the respondent‑Bank and have voluntarily availed the golden handshake scheme and have received their benefits under the said scheme and are not in service and the issue to their extent is not the alive issue which is being raised in this writ petition. Likewise petitioners Nos. 15 to 21 have since been promoted and their grievances have been redressed and to their extent as well this writ petition has become infractuous. If they are aggrieved by the date of promotion, they can file the representation and could have claimed their promotion from the earlier date and in case of refusal from Bank Authorities they can file appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal due to the induction of section 2‑A in the Federal Service Tribunal Act with retrospective effect. Even the matter relates to the terms and conditions of civil servant and due to the induction of section 2‑A appeal can be agitated before the same forum and the amendment has been held by the august Supreme Court of retrospective effect. In this regard I am fortified of the view taken by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the following cases:‑‑ (1) 1997 SCMR 2000, (2) 2000 SCMR 826 and (3) 2000 SCMR 959.

6. Without going into the merits of this case this petition is dismissed as is not maintainable.

7. Before parting from this judgment the office has raised objection that one writ petition is not competent and file separate writ petition by each of the writ petitioners. This objection came up before the Bench of this Court and the matter was kept pending subject to the objection to the maintainability of this petition about the court‑fee at the time of final decision. These questions were to be decided, as I have already held that this petition is not maintainable. I am not inclined to give any finding on the objections. This petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M‑853/L Petition dismissed