2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ZAFAR REHMAN Versus MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA, LAHORE and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members |
| Parties | ZAFAR REHMAN Versus MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA, LAHORE and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ZAFAR REHMAN Versus MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. M. Ikram Zahid, for petitioner.
- Ch. Rahim‑ud‑Din, for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th October, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 4(1)(b)‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Termination of services‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Appellant was appointed against the post of Survey Helper on basis of being player of Basket Ball‑‑‑Services of appellant were terminated on ground that he remained absent from duty for more than five years‑‑‑Appellant had claimed that as he had played some Basket Ball matches during alleged period of his absence, it could not be said that he had remained absent from duty‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellant had not placed any documentary evidence to show that during alleged period of his absence from duty he had played any Basket Ball match, but had made only generalized statement in that respect‑‑‑On such vague assertion by appellant, it could not be believed that he had remained present on duty during said period by playing some matches‑‑‑Appellant had conceded that he had never performed duty as Survey Helper during period he was found to be absent from duty‑--Authorities, in circumstances were legally justified to pass impugned order against appellant on account of his wilful absence from duty without any permission‑‑‑Authorities had passed a legal and valid order by which they had refused to treat appellant to be their employee entitled to salary‑‑‑Appeal being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances. PLD 1990 SC 666 and 2001 SCJ 130 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MOAZZAM HAYAT, MEMBER.‑‑‑Appellant Zafar Rehman is aggrieved by an order dated 16‑8‑2003 by which his services were terminated. No action was taken on his departmental appeal dated 4‑9‑2003. It is prayed by him that the impugned order of termination be set aside and he be reinstated into service with back- benefits.
2. The appellant was appointed against the post of Survey Helper. His this appointment was made since he was player of Basket Ball. It appears from the record that a request was made by him for payment of his salary. His request was declined vide impugned order dated 16‑8‑2003. Through the same order he was informed that since he had remained absent from duty for more than five years. Therefore, he was no more in WAPDA's service. It is maintained by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the appellant had played some Basket Ball matches during the alleged period of his absence it could not be held by the respondents that he had remained absent from duty.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that since the appellant had remained absent from duty for more than five years therefore, the impugned order was passed strictly in accordance with the service rules.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The appellant has not placed any documentary evidence to show that during the alleged period of his absence from duty he had played any Basket Ball match. Only a generalized statement has been made by his learned counsel that during this period he had played some matches. On this vague assertion made by the appellant we are not prepared to believe that he had remained present on duty during the said period by playing some matches.
6. The appellant had been appointed as Survey Helper. It is conceded on his behalf that he had never performed the duty of Survey Helper during the period he was found to be absent from duty. As such the respondents were legally justified to pass the impugned order on account of his wilful absence from duty. A civil servant who remain absent from duty, without any permission, ceases to be a Civil Servant by the operation of FR‑18 and CSR‑
198. In PLD 1990 SC 666 it is held that "Fundamental Rule 18 is not ultra vires of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, it is continued as a statutory rule on the strength of section 22 of Civil Servant Act and no procedural requirement exists for giving effect to it. Remedy lies in approaching the designated authority and not challenging the legal effect of the rule itself." The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in 2001 SCJ
130. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court we hold that the respondents had passed a legal arid valid order by which they had refused to treat the appellant to be their employee, entitled to salary.
7. For the above reasons we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.
8. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./171/FST Appeal dismissed.