1989 SCMR 2010 (PLP)
IBRAHIM GUL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 2010 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | IBRAHIM GUL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act (XLVIII of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 2010 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act (XLVIII of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 2010 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 2010 (PLP) (IBRAHIM GUL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Atiq‑ur‑Rehman Qazi,Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Mian MAjmal, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. and M. A. Qayum, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 7.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989.
- 3. Qazi Atiq‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that having been selected for a better appointment and having discharged their duties to the satisfaction of everyone, the petitioners could not be deprived of pay of the post.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 28‑11‑1987 passed in Appeal No.37 of 1987) ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioners serving in N.P.S. 14 were transferred and posted against posts of N.P.S 17 in their existing pay and grade on the condition that they would not claim any right of permanent absorption against the post and would be reverted to their own posts on the arrival of selectees‑‑Petitioners after serving successfully for a number of years at the posts of B.P.S.17 represented to the Government for grant of pay for P.S.17 which was rejected‑‑Petitioners also failed before Service Tribunal‑‑Held: Postings were against Ex‑Cadre posts and were purely on temporary basis which could neither be construed as ad-hoc appointments nor on deputation‑‑Competent authority was empowered to pass order under S.10 of the Act and denial of pay in NPS‑17 was in accordance with law‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners serving in the Education Department of the N.‑W.F.P. seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 28‑11‑1987 whereby their service appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioners were serving as Teachers in N.P.S.‑14 when in early 1981 and 1982. They were transferred and appointed as Senior Instructor of Commerce in NPS‑17 at Government Agro Technical Teachers Training Centre Peshawar on their own pay and grade. One of the conditions uniform ally made applicable was that the officials will not claim any right of permanent absorption against this post and will be reverted to their own post on the arrival of the selectees of the Public Service Commission. None came to relieve them and they continued functioning as such. Though the petitioners were hit and aggrieved by that part of the transfer order which placed them in their own pay and grade, they did not represent against it till the year 1986 when on failure of their representation they approached the Tribunal claiming that denial of pay in NPS 17 was not in accordance with law on the subject. The Tribunal rejected their claim observing as hereunder:‑ "In their transfer orders it was clearly mentioned that they will draw the same pay which they were drawing, in the Schools wherefrom they were transferred. They were posted against posts of BPS‑17 in their existing grade. It is, therefore, evident that they are borne on the cadre in their parent departments. Their present posting is against Ex‑cadre posts and is purely on temporary basis. It cannot be construed as ad hoc appointment or on deputation: Hence, their claim for regularization against BPS‑17 is not tenable. There is prescribed procedure for appointment to BPS‑17."
3. Qazi Atiq‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that having been selected for a better appointment and having discharged their duties to the satisfaction of everyone, the petitioners could not be deprived of pay of the post.
4. Section 10 of the N.‑W.F.P. Civil Servants Act empowers the competent authority to transfer any civil servant to any post in the provincial Government or Federal Government, inside the country or outside, or to any statutory corporation. Such a transfer of the applicants/petitioners had taken place. The condition imposed on their remuneration was m accordance with law because they had not been formally promoted or otherwise selected through their prescribed selection Boards, nor had they then objected to it. Such a belated attempt to challenge an order which is in accord with law is not permissible. No question of law of public importance arises in this case. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused. M.A.K./I‑86/S Leave refused.