2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
Rao AMIR ALI KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 2 others
| Citation | 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Shahid Karim, J |
| Parties | Rao AMIR ALI KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Shahid Karim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) (Rao AMIR ALI KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Jaffar Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.2(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.212 & 199
Constitutional jurisdictin of High Court
Bar of Art.212 of the Constitution
Terms and conditions of service
Questions of repatriation and absorption
Scope
Petitioner sought reinstatement in service, and withdrawal of notification of retirement and contended that since petitioner was covered by exception contemplated in S.2(b)(i) of Civil Servants Act, 1973; bar of Art.212 of the Constitution was not applicable to present Constitutional petition
Record revealed that petitioner was a permanent employee of National Highways and Motorway Police at time of his retirement, and until such retirement, petitioner did not seek what had been sought in the Constitutional petition
Question of repatriation and absorption in civil serbvice were questions regarding terms and conditions of service and petitioner was clearly covered by definition of "civil servant" and ought to have appraoched Service Tribunal for redressal of grievance
Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Akram v. Registrar, Islamabad High Court and others PLD 2016 SC 961 ref. 2010 SCMR 378 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID KARIM, J.
This constitutional petition seeks a direction to the respondents to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Ch. Muhammad Akram v. Registrar, Islamabad High Court and others (PLD 2016 SC 961) and consequently prays that the notification dated 01.03.2019 of the petitioner's retirement be withdrawn. As a further prayer, it has been requested that the respondents be directed to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department i.e. Punjab Police.
2. The first question that was confronted to the petitioner was regarding maintainability of this petition as it relates to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant which the petitioner admittedly was. It is also not in dispute that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 makes a reference to the terms and conditions of service of a serving as well as a retired civil servant to be dealt with by administrative tribunals set up under that Article. Section 2(a) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 defines a civil servant to mean a person who has been a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not a civil servant within the definition of section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 since he was covered under exception to section 2(b)(i) which relates to a person who is on deputation to the Federation under any provision or other authority. This is belied by not only the contents of this petition but also by the material attached with it which includes a notification dated 3.11.2003 according to which amongst others the petitioner was inducted in the National Highways and Motorways Police against the post of Senior Petrol Officer (BPS-16). Subsequently, the petitioner's services were confirmed on 10.04.2008 and the petitioner was promoted as Chief Petrol Officer (BPS-17). Thus, the case of the respondents that the petitioner was a permanent employee of NHMP at the time of his retirement on 17.4.2019 finds support from these documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner himself. Until his retirement, the petitioner did not make a request which has been made through this constitutional petition. Clearly, the petitioner is covered by the definition of a civil servant and ought to have approached the Service Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Even the questions of repatriation and absorption are questions regarding terms and conditions of service. Reliance may be placed on 2010 SCMR
378. This Court's jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution and this petition being incompetent is dismissed. KMZ/A-37/L Petition dismissed.