Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

2025 SCMR 374 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 4(b)(iii)Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4Disciplinary proceedingsQuantum of sentenceWillful absence from serviceConverting of major penaltyJurisdiction of Service TribunalAuthorities were aggrieved of converting of major penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirementValidity

Civil servant was absent from duty and authorities laid out sufficient reasons to show why they did not want civil servant to continue with his service, considering that he willfully absented himself, did not obtain clearance before travelling, and started looking for jobs after travelling abroad, all of which the civil servant was unable to sufficiently rebut

Due process was observed and followed by authorities

Where absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry

Service Tribunal had no justifiable reason to reduce the punishment from major penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement on the pretext that the punishment was harsh given that the civil servant had studied abroad and was an asset for Pakistan

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal as it exceeded its jurisdiction by arbitrary exercise of discretion which was illegal and without lawful authority and restored penalty imposed by authorities

Appeal was allowed.

2025 PLC(CS) 1051 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts.199 & 212Service Tribunals Act (LXX 1973), S.4Jurisdiction of Service TribunalScope

Civil servant cannot bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by adding a ground of violation of fundamental rights for the purpose of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

2025 PLC(CS) 966 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 212(1)(a) & 212(2)Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2(a), 4, 4A & 4(1)(b)Matters relating to terms and conditions of service of a Civil ServantJurisdiction of Service TribunalsConstitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exclusion ofScope

Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution stipulates that the appropriate legislature may by Act establish tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan, including disciplinary issues

Article 212(2) states that where such a tribunal is established, no other court shall entertain proceedings in respect of matters within the tribunal's jurisdiction

High Court, as a constitutional court, should always be mindful of the jurisdictional exclusion contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution

Any transgression of this constitutional limitation will render its order void and illegal

Therefore, unless the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is ousted under S. 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in respect of matters of terms and conditions of a civil servant is unconstitutional and impermissible.

2025 PLC(CS) 966 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(a), 4, 4A, & 5Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(1)(a)Jurisdiction of Service TribunalScope and powers

Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was enacted pursuant to the legislative mandate under Art. 212 of the Constitution and creates a forum for civil servants to challenge decisions affecting their service

Notably, the expression "civil servant" under S. 2(a) of the Act and Art. 212(1)(a) of the Constitution includes both those who are or have been in the service of Pakistan

Sections 4, 4A & 5 of the Act 1973 outline the scope of jurisdiction and powers of the Service Tribunal

Section 4 of the Act, 1973 provides a right of appeal to a civil servant aggrieved by a final order relating to the terms and conditions of service.

2025 PLC(CS) 966 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.9Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2(a), 4, 4A, 4(1)(b) & 5Civil Servants (Promotion to the Post of Secretary BS-22 and Equivalent) Rules, 2010, Rr.3(1) & (2)Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212(1)(a) & 212(2)Constitutional petition, filling ofMaintainabilityClaim of proforma promotion by civil servantJurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Brief facts were that the petitioner, a retired BS-21 police officer who served as Inspector General of Pakistan Railways Police, approached the High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction seeking proforma promotion to BS-22

Despite becoming eligible for promotion his case was never considered due to the non-convening of the High Powered Selection Board (the "HPSB")

He reached the age of superannuation without being considered, while officers junior to him were subsequently promoted

His representations for proforma promotion post-retirement were either ignored or rejected

He then filed the present Constitutional petition alleging unfair treatment

Held: The petitioner submitted a representation seeking consideration for promotion to BS-22, which was declined

Although it was not clear that the matter was placed before the HPSB or that the Prime Minister made any determination on the petitioner's fitness or eligibility, it nonetheless formally conveyed a final decision by the department refusing further processing of the petitioner's case

Therefore, it constituted an appealable order for the purposes of S. 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973

The appropriate course for the petitioner was to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal

The power to grant proforma promotion lay exclusively with the appointing authority, who must be affirmatively satisfied that the civil servant was, through no fault of their own, wrongfully prevented from serving in the higher post

High Court lacked jurisdiction not only because no such determination had been made but also for the reason that it could not assume the functions of the appointing authority

Constitutional petition being barred under Art. 212(2) of the Constitution was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 40 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212Constitutional petitionCivil serviceClaim for arrears of payJurisdiction of Service TribunalBar contained under Art.212 of the ConstitutionScope

Petitioners employees claimed the grant of certain allowances which had been granted to employees of a different cadre/class of the Province

Validity-Allowances in question were part and parcel of the pay falling in terms and conditions of service

Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the matter relating to terms and conditions of civil servants

Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain matters with regard to pay of civil servants was expressly barred under Art.212 of the Constitution

Claim of petitioners employees with regard to issuance of direction for preparing proper service structure providing promotion on the touchstone of Fundamental Rights would also fall within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Service Tribunal was fully competent to entertain and decide the cases wherein vires of Service Rules or notification had been challenged on the touchstone of being violative of Fundamental Rights and to direct the authority for framing such Rules beneficial to the prospect of the promotion of civil servants

Claim of petitioners employees would fall in "terms and conditions of service"

High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional petition

Petitioners employees might raise their point before the proper forum, if so advised

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

2018 PLC(CS)N 89 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.4(1)(b) & 3(2)O. M. No. F. No.4(6)imp/FR-17/-2013-277 dated 18-09-2015PromotionObjective assessmentJurisdiction of Service TribunalScopeContention of employee was that he was deprived from promotion for no fault of himValidity

Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction on the controversy of determination of fitness and suitability of a person for a job and for promotion

No remedy of filing appeal had been provided to the civil servant against determination of fitness and he could invoke jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution

Posts of senior management (BS-20 and 21) positions required selection on the basis of merit

Promotion to such posts could not be made in a mechanical manner and a variety of factors had to be taken into consideration

Questions of determination of fitness of an employee to be promoted was not capable of being scrutinized on the basis of judicially manageable standards

Nevertheless such subjective evaluation was to be premised on an objective criteria with the object of evolving such objective criterion

Government itself had issued promotion policy guidelines and developed methods of quantifying confidential reports which should be treated at par with statutory rules

Assessment of an officer's performance during a year might completely depend on the subjective opinion of his reporting officer

Weightage required to be accorded to such report for the purpose of determining fitness for promotion would entail an objective assessment

Court could not sit in judgment over subjective evaluation but would indeed be competent to examine whether the required objective criterion was followed

Employee/petitioner, in the present case, had been awarded eleven marks by Central Selection Board but same did not reflect in any of the panel proforma reports, which, if had been added he would have been crossed the eligibility threshold marks

Performance evaluation report and training marks in every panel proforma were different

Impugned recommendations/ decision of Central Selection Board required re-consideration of petitioner's case who had retired

Case of petitioner could not be sent to Central Selection Board for recommendation, however, he was entitled to get the benefit of Office Memorandum No.F.No.4 (6)imp/FR-17/2013-277 dated 18-09-2015

Authorities were directed to consider case of petitioner in the light of revised guidelines issued by the Finance Division vide its Office Memorandum No. F. No.4(6)imp/FR-17/ 2013-277 dated 18-09-2015 without being influenced by the decision by Central Selection Board

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

2016 PLC(CS) 236 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 23Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1980, R.3Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5Jurisdiction of Service TribunalRight of appeal, enforcement ofScopeNon-existence of final order, original or appellateEffectLimitationExistence of an order for the purpose of preferring an appeal was sine qua nonAt least one final order was necessary for filing of appealNo particular form of the order was required under these proceedings

Order might be expressed or implied from which it could be inferred that the competent authority had declined the request of the civil servant

Appellant might file appeal before the appellate authority under the appeal rules and if the appeal was dismissed and order of the dismissal was communicated to the appellant or it remained undecided within the period of 90 days from the date of preferring the departmental appeal, the appellant might approach Service Tribunal for redressal

Appeal was disposed of being not maintainable.

2015 PLC(CS) 215 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Jurisdiction of Service TribunalScopeQuestion of "vires" of rulesFundamental Rights

Service Tribunal was competent to adjudicate upon the question of "vires" of rules framed by the department, even if the same were challenged on the basis of violation of fundamental rights of the civil servant.

2014 PLC(CS) 361 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

R. 7Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975, S.4Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss.44 & 47Writ petitionMaintainabilityCivil servantTransferDeputationTerms and conditions of serviceJurisdiction of Service TribunalScopeEmployees of Local Council Service were transferred in Local Government and Rural Development DepartmentPetitioners aggrieved by transfer/deputation of respondents employees invoked the writ jurisdiction of High CourtPetitioners claimed infringement of their basic right from such transfersValidityWrit in such like cases was not competentGrounds raised in writ petition were related to terms and conditions of servicePetitioner had other alternate adequate remedy

Disputes relating to the terms and conditions of the civil servants were given exclusively within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Writ petition was dismissed.

2013 PLC(CS) 1463 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(a) & 3(2)Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.2(b)(ii)Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212Constitutional petitionContractual appointmentJurisdiction of Service TribunalScope

Law does not recognize any contract employee as civil servant.