1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioners, therefore, felt aggrieved against the threatened action of the respondents and rushed to the High Court against the action of the respondents to cause reversion in the designation and nature of the work, which was illegal. Syed Abbas Zia learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent could not change the designation of the job of the peti tioners from Assistant Engineer to Engineering Supervisor. He submitted that there was no basis in law for doing that. He submitted that the petitioners having been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on completion of all formalities they cannot be asked to work in the post of Engineering Supervisor which is essentially, a Grade‑11 post and hence an officer who is in Grade‑16 cannot be made to work in a post of Grade

11. He stated that the petitioners were not being required to leave their Grade‑16 as they were being allowed to continue in the said Grade‑16 and all emoluments and privileges were to be continued for them as were available to all Grade‑16 officers, and yet they were being asked to work as Engineering Supervisors. He submitted that it was almost asking a Superintendent of Police to work as a mere Sub‑Inspector and the same is completely unwarranted in law. Mr. Dastgir appearing for the respondents submitted that the peti tioners had been given the promotion from Grade‑11 to Grade‑16 w. e. f. 19th February, 1977 in view of the Government Policy that 25% of those persons who were working as Engineering Supervisors they should be promoted in Grade‑16 but they were to continue in their own job of Engineering Supervisors. He therefore, submitted that 25% of the job of Engineering Supervisors were in Grade‑16 while the other 75 /p of those jobs were in Grade‑

11. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners are being required to perform the same jobs, which they were performing in Grade‑16 up to 21st March, 1979 when they were promoted on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers. He submitted that the promotion of the petitioners as Assistant Engineers was clearly stated to be until further orders, and therefore, it was an appointment in an officiating capacity and the Government was well‑within its rights to revert them to their original position. He submitted that officiating appointment did not give to the petitioners any vested right to continue in the post of Assistant Engineers. Mr. Dastgir relied upon P L D 1959 S C 107 (108) where it was held as under: ‑ "When an officer is expressly appointed in an officiating capacity and until further orders, Government can at any time terminate his officiating appointment and revert him to his original position, even if such reversion may amount to a review of the earlier order." The submission of Mr. Dastgir appears to be basically correct because, the promotion order of the petitioners had clearly stated that the promotion as Assistant Engineer was until further orders. Mr. Dastgir further submitted that the action of the respondent was merely a threatened action and, therefore, the petition was premature. Mr. Dastgir also submitted that since the threatened action of the res pondent amounts reversion of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Engineering Supervisor, therefore, it was a re version and the same was a term and condition of service as provided in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 in section 12 which reads as under: ‑ "A civil servant appointed to a higher post or grade ad hoc or on temporary or officiating basis shall be liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice." The counsel further submitted that the petitioners had a right to file an appeal to the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal; Act, 1973 and, therefore, petition against the same was not competent, particularly in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan which provides as under: ‑ "212‑(1) notwithstanding anything herein before contained, the appropriate Legislature may by Act (provide for establishment of) one or more Administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of‑ (a) matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons (who are or have been) in the service of Pakistan, including discip linary matters ; (b)Matters relating to claims arising from tortious acts of Government, or any person in the services of Pakistan or of any local or other authority empowered by law to levy any tax or case and any servant of such authority acting in the discharge of his duties as such servant ; or (c) matters relating to the acquisition, administration and disposal of any property which is deemed to be enemy property under any law. (2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained where any Administrative Court or Tribunal is established under clause (I), no other Court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of such Administrative Court or Tribunal extends and all proceedings in respect of any such matter which may be pend ing before such other Court immediately before the establishment of the Administrative Court or Tribunal (other than an appeal pending before the Supreme Court), shall abate on such establishment: Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not apply to an Administrative Court or Tribunal established under an Act of a Provincial Assembly unless, at the request of that Assembly made in the form of a resolution Parliament by law extends the pro visions to such a Court or Tribunal. (3) An appeal to the Supreme Court from a‑ Judgment, decree, order or sentence of an Administrative Court or Tribunal shall lie only if the Supreme Court, being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, grants leave to appeal." Since Service Tribunal Act, 1973 has been enforced by the Government of Pakistan and section 4 of the same has provided that a civil servant aggrieved by any final order made by a departmental authority in respect of any terms of conditions of his service can prefer an appeal to the Tribunal and such Tribunals have been already formed in Pakistan and are functioning, therefore, this matter could have been agitated before them. It may also be pointed out that in Chapter 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 the terms and conditions of Civil Servants have been enumerat ed in sections 3 to

22. These terms and conditions include (1) tenure of office, (2) manner of appointment, (3) probation, (4) confirmation, (5) Seniority, (6) promotion, (7) posting and transfer, (8) termination of service, (9) Reversion to a lower Grade of service, (10) Retirement from service, (11) Employment after retirement, (12) Discipline, (13) Pay, (14), Leave, (15) Pension and gratuity, (16) Provident Fund, (17) Benevolant and Group Insurance, (18) Right of appeal or Representation, (19) Con duct, efficiency. The above list is a very exhaustive list and covers almost the whole scope of the service exigencies and since action in respect of these terms and conditions against a Government servant has been made appealable under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, therefore, the petitioners could file appeal to the Tribunals. They could file appeal before the Tribunal even against a threatened action as held in P L D 1979 Karl. 1 and also in P L D 1981 S C 715 (F. B,). Since the appellants could have filed appeal against the threatened action of reversion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of1D Engineering Supervisor, therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court was clearly barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. Mr. Abbas Zia bad tried to argue that the threatened action of the respondents was not a reversion but an action of posting of a Grade‑16 Employee in a Grade‑11 post. We asked him to give a name to such an action but he submitted that it was only a threatened and mala fide action and not action of reversion. We pointed to him that in two paras of the petition the petitioners have themselves described the threaten action of the respondents as a threatened reversion and, therefore, even according to the petitioners it was a case of reversion. However, even if the peti tioners had not described this action as a reversion this action is nothing but a reversion because the petitioners are being asked to leave their job of Assistant Engineer and come back to the job of Engineering Supervisor and, therefore, it is an action of reverting the petitioners from the pro moted job of Assistant Engineer to the original job of Engineering Supervisor. Even if the petitioners consider the threatened action to be a matter of posting from one job to another job in view of the fact that their grade was not being changed, still the matter of positing is also covered by the exhaustive list of terms and conditions of service as enumerated above and the matter will still therefore, be such which could be agitated before the Service Tribunal. If a person considers that he is being post ed to a post which is not commensurate with his status then he can move the Service Tribunal against the same and, therefore, again the petition' in respect of such matters which can be taken before the Service Tribunal would be barred under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 or the present Article 9 of P.C.O. of 1981. Consequently these petitions are found to be without merit and are hereby dismissed. A.E. Petitions dismissed.