Terms and conditions of service

Respondent/civil servant was employee of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), an autonomous body, who switched his service through Federal Public Service Commission and was appointed as Assistant Director

Respondent/civil servant was aggrieved of disallowing the benefit of pay protection by government

Service Tribunal allowed his appeal on the foothold that when contract employees, who were also non-civil servants, could get their pay-protection vide Finance Division's O.M dated 31-05-2013, then it would be discriminatory not to allow benefit of pay-protection to other non-civil servants

Validity

There was no rationale to compare or equate two different creed of employees within the one and the same employment status/pattern to invoke or bring up equality clause or treating it discriminatory rather than considering grant of pay-protection strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policy

When any decision of Court or Tribunal was found in ignorance or lack of knowledge of a relevant statutory provision or a binding decision of Court of earlier provisions or decisions, it was called a decision per incuriam, i.e., the decision was made in unfamiliarity/ignorance or obliviousness of pertinent statues or precedents as done by Service Tribunal in the present case

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal resultantly appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

Respondent/civil servant was employee of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), an autonomous body, who switched his service through Federal Public Service Commission and was appointed as Assistant Director

Respondent/civil servant was aggrieved of disallowing the benefit of pay protection by government

Service Tribunal allowed his appeal on the foothold that when contract employees, who were also non-civil servants, could get their pay-protection vide Finance Division's O.M dated 31-05-2013, then it would be discriminatory not to allow benefit of pay-protection to other non-civil servants

Validity

There was no rationale to compare or equate two different creed of employees within the one and the same employment status/pattern to invoke or bring up equality clause or treating it discriminatory rather than considering grant of pay-protection strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policy

When any decision of Court or Tribunal was found in ignorance or lack of knowledge of a relevant statutory provision or a binding decision of Court of earlier provisions or decisions, it was called a decision per incuriam, i.e., the decision was made in unfamiliarity/ignorance or obliviousness of pertinent statues or precedents as done by Service Tribunal in the present case

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal resultantly appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

Issue of inter se seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) of the same date recommended by the Sindh Public Service Commission

Appointment of ASIs from different dates by the Police Department

Order once resolving the issue of inter se seniority was subsequently withdrawn by the Police Department

Terms and conditions of service

Bar contained in Art. 212(3) of the Constitution

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Scope

Issue related to the terms and conditions of service of civil servant

As at first instance before the order of Inspector General of Police petitioners/ASIs had already approached the Sindh Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievance

Petitioners being civil servants, whose case related to inter se seniority, could not maintain a constitutional petition keeping in view Art. 212 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable with a direction to the Inspector General of Police Sindh to once again consider and decide the matter in issue through a speaking order

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Before taking any decision regarding admission of a constitutional petition brought by a civil servant, the High Court is expected to first decide the question of jurisdiction, having regard to the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution

Plea taken by an aggrieved civil servant regarding violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution also does not confer jurisdiction on a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Before taking any decision regarding admission of a constitutional petition brought by a civil servant, the High Court is expected to first decide the question of jurisdiction, having regard to the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution

Plea taken by an aggrieved civil servant regarding violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution also does not confer jurisdiction on a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Petitioners (having been recruited against different positions lying vacant in the Health Department/respondents) sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for release and payment of their due salaries for last three years or so

Validity

Petitioners, admittedly, were initially recruited against different positions lying vacant in the respondents /Health Department; they submitted their respective joining reports and started performing official duties

Petitioners were, thus, members of civil service of the Province (of Balochistan) and held civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Province and therefore, for all intents and purposes, were civil servants within the meaning of S. 2 subsection (1), clause (b) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('the Act 1974')

Petitioners claimed payment of monthly pays

Like any other term and condition of service of a civil servant, pay is likewise a term and condition of service of a person in the service of the Province of Balochistan

According to Preamble of the Act, 1974, said piece of legislation was enacted to regulate by law the appointment of persons to and the terms and conditions of service of persons in the service of Balochistan and to provide for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto

Terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in the service of the Province of Balochistan are contained in Chapter II of the Act, 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder

As S.17 of the Act, 1974, relates to the term 'pay', therefore, a civil servant in the service of the Province of Balochistan, aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate made by Departmental Authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may prefer an appeal to the Balochistan Service Tribunal established under Art.212(1) of the Constitution read with S. 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974

Article 212(2) of the Constitution imposes a complete clog on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution where a matter relates to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in the service of the Province of Balochistan

Article 199 of the Constitution starts with an expression i.e. 'subject to the Constitution' whereas, Art. 212(1) thereof with an obstante clause i.e. 'notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained'

Therefore, Art.212(1) of the Constitution supersedes Art. 199(1) of Constitution in respect of a matter relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant

Since 'pay' is a term and condition of the service of the petitioners therefore, they should have preferred service appeal before the Balochistan Service Tribunal after exhausting the remedy of a department appeal

High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not exercise jurisdiction in respect of the grievance of petitioners in relation to their monthly pay

Petitioners were civil servants and their alleged grievance related to the terms and conditions of their service, therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition was barred by Art.175(2) read with Art. 212(2) of the Constitution

Balochistan Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the alleged grievance of the petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Plea raised by petitioner was that the highest bidder failed to honour the commitment therefore, he was to be declared as the successful bidder

Validity

Acceptance of petitioner's bid was contingent with the conditions that if first highest bidder failed to pay 1/4th amount of auction within stipulated period of time, the bid amount would be negotiated with petitioner

Counter offer of petitioner was neither agreed by respondent / authorities nor was approved and there was no concluded contract between the parties

It was the policy of government that when recovery of toll tax was auctioned for a particular year at a particular amount, in the following year, the new bidder had to increase the bid by 10% at least

It was the liability of petitioner to pay 10% increase to authorities on the amount of highest bid for previous year

Authorities were under legal obligation to return bid security amount / instrument to petitioner but after adjustment of outstanding amount against him

High Court directed the authorities to conduct the auction afresh

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

When law provided remedy to another authority fully competent to give relief, any indulgence to the contrary by High Court was likely to produce sense of distrust in those authorities and to cause underserved reflection on their integrity and competency and could defeat legislative intent

If remedy sought for was in substance a remedy which was available under ordinary law, then resort was to the proper forum and not to extraordinary remedy provided by Art.199 of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in the matter in view of bar contained in Art. 212 (2) of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant was aggrieved of order issued by respondent / authority stopping his pension after his retirement on attaining age of superannuation

Judge in Chambers of High Court in view of bar contained in Art. 212 of the Constitution, declined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction

Plea raised by appellant was that after retirement he ceased to be a 'civil servant', therefore, bar of Art. 212 of the Constitution did not apply

Validity

Pension was one of the terms of service of a civil servant, though it started with retirement

Pension formed part of those terms and conditions to which civil servant joined the service

Question of jurisdiction of High Court was different from the question whether the respondent/authority had correctly withheld the pension of appellant

Latter aspect of the matter was always to be considered, in such cases, by the forum having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters

Question of delay, on account of pursuing remedy before High Court could also be seen by competent forum for which guidelines were available in number of judgments of Supreme Court

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the matter as Judge in Chambers of High Court correctly appreciated the law on the subject

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Civil servant appointed on a higher post or status on adhoc, temporary or officiating basis was liable to be reversed under S.12 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to his substantive post or grade without serving any notice

There were two permutations in S.12 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973: fist that reversion to lower or substantive post could be made by competent authority without notice; and second that such exercise was within the terms and conditions of service

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as reversion of petitioners / civil servants fell within the terms and conditions of service

In the present case there was neither any question of non-hearing of petitioners, nor of not providing them opportunity of hearing before passing orders in question, and nor the question of discrimination

High Court did not have jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, as the matter squarely fell within the jurisdiction of Sindh Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

It is the Government which has domain to determine the terms and conditions and pay and privileges of any post or office keeping in view the nature of job load of work, number of people assigned for the job, economic and financial condition of the State, amongst others

Parity may be also adjudged keeping in view the comparative quantum of responsibilities and assignments.

Petitioners-employees filed writ petition before High Court for seeking direction for implementation of Service Rules for their promotion against quota reserved for initial recruitment

Writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the matter was with regard to terms and conditions of service and Service Tribunal was the proper forum

Validity

Right of service appeal to the civil servants had been provided against any final order of the authority adversely affecting terms and conditions of service

Neither service appeal had been provided nor Service Tribunal was competent to issue direction for implementation of Service Rules in the present case

Service Rules could be treated as departmental order of the Authority

Employees had approached the High Court for implementation of service rules for their promotion against quota reserved for initial recruitment

Supreme Court observed that present matter did not fall within the purview of terms and conditions of service and writ petition was competent

Petitioners had sought direction for implementation of quota reserved for their promotion

High Court was not to determine the suitability or right of promotion of any individual civil servant rather it was consequential relief that if direction was issued to the department for implementation of Service Rules then in that case direction for processing the case of promotion of the persons falling in the cadre had to be issued

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside and case was remanded for decision on merit in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Matter of allotment or cancellation of an official residence is connected with the terms and conditions of the service of the persons in the service of Pakistan, in public service and other officials of the concerned government, autonomous, semi-autonomous bodies, authorities, corporations etc.

After acquittal from one criminal case in year 2015 and in other case in year 2019, petitioner sought his reinstatement in year 2021

Validity

Non-obstante clause of Arts. 212(1) & (2) of the Constitution began with 'not withstanding anything hereinbefore contained', which had overriding on Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution which was already 'subject to the Constitution'

Scope of jurisdiction and powers of Service Tribunal were provided in Ss. 4 & 5 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act, 1974

High Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in respect of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, which could be adjudicated by Service Tribunal under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act, 1974

Any transgression to exclusion contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution, would render order of High Court void and illegal

Unless jurisdiction of Service Tribunal was ousted under S.4(1) (b) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act, 1974, assumption of jurisdiction by High Court in respect of matters of terms and conditions of civil servant was unconstitutional and impermissible

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Functions of State Bank of Pakistan were contemplated under Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, with respect to activation and operation of banks and for carrying out purpose of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 and matter ancillary thereto

No statuary duty and obligation of State Bank of Pakistan in Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 to direct private bank to perform its functions in respect of its employees' terms and conditions of service

Constitutional petition could only be filed for enforcement of fundamental rights

In order to obtain a writ or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, petitioner was to satisfy the Court that he had a legal right towards performance of a legal duty by the party against whom mandamus was sought

Such order or direction could only be granted subject to provision of relevant law

Neither appellant / bank was amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction as was a private bank nor State Bank of Pakistan had any statutory role or jurisdiction in respect of terms and conditions of service of employees of private Banks like respondent

Division Bench of High Court set aside direction to decide representation of respondent / employee as it could not be issued by Single Judge of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Under S.11 of the Punjab Emergency Service Act, 2006, though terms and conditions of service of employees can be prescribed by Council, however, there is no specific provision for disciplinary proceedings against them under the Act

On the other hand, the Punjab Emergency Service, Lahore being a statutory body admittedly owned and controlled by Provincial Government, its employees are covered under the definition of "employee" under S.2(h) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 for the purpose of its applicability

As per R.3 of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, the provisions of the Rules are in addition to the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Similarly under Rule 7 of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, the official shall be liable to be proceeded under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, if he is inter alia guilty of misconduct

For disciplinary proceedings against employees of Punjab Emergency Service, Lahore, the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, will apply and Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, are merely in addition to Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006.

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

Validity

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.

Department in response to a constitutional petition filed by its employee contended that the terms and conditions of employment, which were not governed by any statutory provisions, were amenable to rule of "master and servant"

Held; the subject of the petition was a claim of post-retirement pensionary benefits, which had triggered Art. 9 of the Constitution as the petitioner for his livelihood was dependent solely on the post-retirement/pensionary benefits

Therefore, the constitutional petition was maintainable.

Petitioners were officers of Audit department and were aggrieved of notification imposing restriction on their postings as Unit incharge in field formations

Validity

Petitioners were civil servants and under S.10 of Civil Servants Act, 1973, they were liable to serve anywhere within or outside the Province to any post under Federal Government or any Provincial Government or local authority

There was no concept of vested right in posting of a civil servant who could be posted anywhere and could not demand or seek posting or transfer at a place of his choice

It was not their right to seek a specific posting or assignment of assessment or field formation

Petitioners could also be posted as Officers on Special Duty without any assignment

This without any other plausible cause, did not by itself give a cause of action to seek enforcement of any constitutional right

Petitioners as civil servants were bound to obey order of Federal Board of Revenue and postings so assigned for which while entering into service they had agreed

Seeking a person specific relief for some special posting or assignment was not per-se a right, which could be enforced through High Court

Petitioners were officers of Inland Revenue, even if they were not assigned any field formation or assessment related duties

Petitioners claimed to be auditors and it was better if they would remain as auditors, instead of seeking any assessment related assignments

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as the petition was incompetent

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of all other Courts including High Court had been barred in view of embargo contained in Art.212 of the Constitution

Plea of mala fide did not confer jurisdiction upon the High Court in view of ouster contained in Art.212 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where matter before the High Court was whether or not the impugned notification which had been issued by a functionary of the Federal Government was backed by legal authority or otherwise, High Court observed that such matter did not relate to terms and conditions of any particular person who was aggrieved by the impugned notification or any person who was claiming a right on the basis of such notification

Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution provided that in the absence of any adequate remedy provided by law on the application of an aggrieved party, High Court could make an order

High Court was vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

Combined reading of Ss. 2(1)(i), 2(1)(d), 5 & 23 of the National Assembly Secretariat Employees Act, 2018, clearly stipulated that employees of National Assembly Secretariat were civil servants and their terms of service were the same as those of civil servants in the corresponding posts or Basic Pay Scale

If any employee had grievance with respect to the terms and conditions of service, he shall have the remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal in the light of Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Prayers made in the petition fell within the "terms and conditions of service" and were covered under Ss. 5 & 23 of the National Assembly Secretariat Employees Act, 2018 hence, constitutional petition was not maintainable

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Matter of allotment or cancellation of an official residence is connected with the terms and conditions of the service of the persons in the service of Pakistan, in public service and other officials of the concerned government, autonomous, semi-autonomous bodies, authorities, corporations etc.

Transfer matters fall within the ambit of "terms and conditions of service" and the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in respect thereof under Art. 212 of the Constitution but since the petition before High Court involved interpretation of fundamental rights with reference to persons with disabilities so the objection of maintainability was overruled.

Interview of a candidate / civil servant was a subjective test, and it was not possible for a court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of a "viva voce board" or interview committee; and it was within domain of members of such a committee to determine as to what persuaded them to award certain marks to a particular candidate and a court of law could not substitute its findings for that of such committee.

Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that plaintiff was a civil servant and Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate terms and conditions of service

Validity

Plaintiff-civil servant had been granted honorarium by the Cabinet Division

Defendant had refused to release duly sanctioned special incentive to the plaintiff

Civil servant had no other option but to file a suit for recovery of said amount before the Civil Court

Special pay, incentive and honorarium had not been included in the pay of a civil servant

Appeal against the order of the departmental authority lay before Service Tribunal

No adverse order of any departmental authority had been passed against the plaintiff-civil servant

Honorarium and special incentive did not form part of terms and conditions of a civil servant

No appeal could be filed before Service Tribunal as there did not exist order of departmental authority

Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case of plaintiff, in circumstances

Impugned order passed by the Court below was set aside and matter was remanded for decision on merits

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Civil servant aggrieved by any final order passed by departmental authority with regard to any terms and conditions of his service might prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal

Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction with regard to decision or order of departmental authorities determining the fitness or otherwise of a person for promotion

Departmental authorities had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the fitness of person to be promoted or not to a higher grade

Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction with regard to matter relating to terms and conditions of service.

Employees of Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and then to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited

Retirement under Voluntary Separation Scheme

Terms and conditions of service

Employees were seeking similar pensionary benefits as extended by the Government for retired civil servants

Validity

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Service Regulations, 1996, had not been notified in the official gazette and same did not have a statutory status

Employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation after enactment of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and governed by Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Service Regulations, 1996, could not agitate a dispute with regard to terms and conditions of their service by filing constitutional petition

Section 9 of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and Ss. 35 & 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996, did protect the terms and conditions of service of departmental employees

Departmental employees who had not opted Voluntary Separation Scheme could agitate grievance regarding terms and conditions of their service in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Retirement in the ordinary course would entitle employee having pensionable service to pension

Employees who had opted Voluntary Separation Scheme having twenty years of service were eligible for early retirement and enhanced gross pension

None of the petitioners had twenty years of service to make them eligible for enhanced gross pension under Voluntary Separation Scheme

If petitioners had not opted Voluntary Separation Scheme then they would remain in service for a period so as to make their service pensionable

Had petitioners completed twenty years of service then they would have been entitled to the payment of pension on retirement

Petitioners had not retired by operation of any statutory rules but due to the option exercised by them for Voluntary Separation Scheme and constitutional petition was not maintainable

Controversial question of fact could not be resolved without recording of evidence and the exercise was not permissible in constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioners had received bonus and other benefits before their retirement in the ordinary course

Employees had opted for Voluntary Separation Scheme and they had not been paid any pension from their retirement

Employees had received benefits under Voluntary Separation Scheme and had accepted their disentitlement to the payment of pension

Constitutional petition had been filed after more than nine years from exercising option of Voluntary Separation Scheme

Power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction was discretionary

High Court could refuse to exercise constitutional jurisdiction if a party was guilty of delay and laches

No plausible explanation had been put forth for inordinate delay in filing of constitutional petitions

Constitutional petitions being not maintainable were dismissed, in circumstances.

Grievance petition was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction but High Court remanded the case for decision afresh after recording the evidence of the parties

Validity

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council or the Legislative Assembly could legislate for the establishment of Administrative Courts or Tribunals with regard to the terms and conditions of the persons who were or had been in the service of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Employees of "Industrial Development Bank" were not holding the civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Question of availing the remedy of appeal by the said employees before Service Tribunal would not arise in circumstances

Neither Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly nor the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council was empowered to legislate for determination of terms and conditions of such persons

Employees had statutory right to raise any point before the proper forum and same should be attended and resolved according to law

Employees of "Industrial Development Bank" were not civil servants and remedy of appeal was not available to them before the Service Tribunal

Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

Federal Levies Force (Service) Rules, 2016 were promulgated which adversely effected terms and conditions of service of petitioners-employees

Contention of authority was that constitutional petition was not maintainable

Validity

Employees of Frontier Constabulary were civil servants having direct connection with the affairs of the Federation and Defence of Pakistan

Terms and conditions of service of petitioners-employees were regulated by Federal Levies Force Regulations and Rules made thereunder

High Court had no jurisdiction to determine and decide controversial issues with regard to terms and conditions of a civil servant

Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine all the issues arising out of terms and conditions of service of civil servant

Petitioners-employees had right of appeal against the impugned amendment within thirty days of communication of such order

Petitioners-employees could prefer their individual appeal before the competent authority within statutory period of limitation commencing from the date of issuance of copy of present judgment

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

Question with regard to eligibility of a candidate did fall outside the jurisdiction of High Court in view of Art. 212 of the Constitution

Present matter was not with regard to determination of fitness of respondent for promotion but it was determination of eligibility relating to the terms and conditions of service

Question of eligibility of a civil servant did fall within the domain of Service Tribunal

Issue of eligibility of candidate was outside the ambit of judicial review of High Court

Petitioners had failed to meet the minimum threshold for promotion

Nothing was on record that recommendations of Provincial Selection Board were result of colourable exercise of authority

High Court could not substitute the opinion/findings of competent authority mere on the basis of bald assertions

High Court could review the opinion of competent authority, if its decision was based on colourable exercise of authority, arbitrary and affected civil servant had been non-suited on the basis of personal likes or superseded on the basis of undisclosed adverse material/information

Impugned decision did not suffer from any illegality or defect

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were contract employees with respondent company who sought regularization of their service as per terms of advertisement

Validity

Regularization of employees was not part of terms and conditions of service of employees but it depended upon length of service

Petitioners approached High Court for regularization of service when they had no legal remedy for enforcement of their Fundamental Rights particularly those enshrined under Arts. 9 & 25 of the Constitution

High Court directed Chief Executive Officer/competent authority of respondent company to consider cases of petitioners for regularization of their service in accordance with law and dicta laid down by Supreme Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Employee being a civil servant his case would fall within the ambit of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and rules framed thereunder

High Court had no jurisdiction with regard to the matters pertaining to terms and conditions of civil servant

Expression 'terms and conditions of service' would include transfer, posting and disciplinary matters and same would come within the ambit of S. 4 of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Employee had remedy under S. 4 of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine however employee would be at liberty to avail the remedy as provided to him under the law.

Bar of R.5 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Federal Service Tribunal Chairman and Members Rules, 1983 was attracted and employee would fall in the category of person mentioned in the said Rule

Case of employee would fall under Rr.6 & 7 of the Rules, and High Court had drawn correct conclusion in the impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Civil servant was to wait for decision of his application/representation till expiry of ninety days and if it remained unattended during that period, he might approach Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance

Jurisdiction of High Court had been ousted in the matters with regard to terms and conditions of service

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.

Express bar had been imposed on the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain any matter with regard to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant

High Court had no authority to determine the challenge made to rules or notifications which would adversely affect the prospects of promotion of civil servant even if the same were challenged on the ground of infringing the fundamental rights of the civil servants or same were based on mala fide of department of the Government

Such bar was effective to the extent of only those cases to which the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal had been extended

Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain and decide matters which were expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal had not been barred under Art.212 of the Constitution

Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal would be alive and that of High Court would be barred with regard to issues being expressly provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973

Ouster of jurisdiction of High Court would only come into play and be effective when Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the said matter

Service Tribunal was competent to entertain and decide cases wherein vires of service rules or notification had been challenged on the touchstone of being violative of fundamental rights of the civil servants and mala fide of the Executive to frame such rules

Jurisdiction of High Court was barred to entertain the present constitutional petition as same was with regard to terms and conditions of service of petitioners for which exclusive jurisdiction would vest with the Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Civil servant could not approach High Court for redressal of his grievance which was with regard to his terms and conditions of service

Such grievance of a civil servant would fall within the domain of Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was not competent, however, petitioner might if so advised approach the departmental authorities or invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Pakistan Railways was the department of Federal Government and its employees were covered by "persons in the service of Pakistan"

Employees were seeking promotion to the next higher grade

Remedies of appeal, review or representation before the departmental authorities had not been availed by the employees

Employees had directly approached the High Court for their promotion which relief could not be granted in view of bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution

Matter, in the present case, did not relate to fitness of the employees but promotion to the next higher grade had been sought on the basis of reserved quota

Prayer made by the employees was with regard to "terms and conditions" of their service which could not be granted under the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Employees-petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Said relief could not be granted under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in view of the bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were working in different departments of Provincial Government and performing their duties as Pesh-i-Imam/Khatib in different mosques

Appointments of petitioners had been made under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Appointment Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1989

Petitioners were having the status of civil servants

Change of grade must change the scale of pay of petitioners

Element of selection would be involved for promotion

Order of competent authority would be required to be passed for revision of pay and consideration of the comparative suitability and entitlement of the incumbent

Grant of selection grade, uprgradation and promotion to higher pay scale would relate to terms and conditions of service

Any change in the pay scale of the employee would bring his case within the ambit of terms and conditions of service

Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine such question in view of explicit bar under Art.212 of the Constitution

Order passed on the basis of mala fide, coram non judice or in violation of any rule could only be challenged before the Service Tribunal

High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present constitutional petition which was dismissed being not maintainable.

High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction had no jurisdiction to entertain/adjudicate upon the constitutional petition against the transfer order

Copy of constitutional petition alongwith its annexures were transmitted as per request of employee to the department with the direction by the High Court to treat the same as a representation and decide the same in accordance with law within a specified period

Operation of impugned order would remain suspended till the date fixed for decision of representation and same would automatically lapse thereafter

Employee should avail alternate remedies available to him against the impugned order

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

In view of the bar contained under Art.212 of the Constitution, High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate in cases pertaining to enforcement of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant

Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed.

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Employees Pension Fund (as created by a Trust Deed dated the 2nd April 1994), Para. 2

Terms and conditions of service

Pension

Employees of Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department (T&T Department) who were subsequently transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (the Corporation) and then to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (the Company)

Entitlement of such employees to receive pensionary benefits as revised/increased by the Federal Government

Terms and conditions of service of the transferred employees from T&T Department to the Corporation and then to the Company remained unaltered and they continued to be paid the benefits as were admissible to them as employees of T&T Department

Terms and conditions of service and also the rules of service which were applicable to the T&T Department employees while in employment of the Federal Government would continue to be applicable to them on their transfer to the Corporation and then to the Company

Employees of T&T Department who were transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company, would on retirement be entitled to payment of pension announced by the Federal Government, from time to time, thus if any increase in pension was announced by the Federal Government for its employees, the same would also apply and be paid to the employees of T&T Department transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Constitutional provision contained in Art.212(2) opening with the 'non-obstante' clause, expressly barred all courts, including the High Court to take cognizance of matters, which could be agitated and adjudicated before an administrative tribunal constituted and functioning under the law.

Civil servant had no "right to promotion" to a higher post, whereas, a "right to be considered for promotion" would accrue in favour of the civil servant on his fulfilling the requisite prescribed qualification

While dealing with maintainability of constitutional petition by a civil servant relating to "terms and conditions" of his service, it was settled that the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same vested in the Service Tribunal and not the constitutional courts

Right to be considered for promotion to a higher post by a civil servant was a matter, which related to the "terms and conditions of service" and the Service Tribunal had to decide the same

Grievance of the petitioners relating to their right to be eligible for promotion to a higher post were 'vested right' provided and protected under S.9 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973

"Right to eligibility for promotion"were terms and conditions of service of the petitioners

Authorities had refused the right of petitioners to be considered for promotion in their comments, the same were deemed as final order provided under S.4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974

Exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matters relating to the right to be considered for promotion to a higher grade vested in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974 and that the High Court was constitutionally barred under Art.212 of the Constitution to take cognizance thereof

Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Terms and conditions of service would include pay, promotion, allowances, pension and seniority.

Suspension pending disciplinary action germane to the terms and conditions of service and appeal against such order was maintainable before Service Tribunal

Jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution to scrutinize the suspension order was ousted

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Contention of the petitioner was that departmental authorities withheld the annual increments without any reason and the same were awarded to other similarly placed persons

Validity

As per the terms and conditions of petitioner's service, he was held entitled to minimum basic pay with the admissible allowances under the usual conditions but a condition was attached in his appointment order to the effect that the petitioner would not be entitled to annual increment till his regular appointment as Accountant on qualifying the departmental accounts examination

Petitioner had not qualified the prescribed departmental examination till availing Voluntary Separation Scheme, which was must to get annual increment as per terms and conditions of his service as contained in his appointment order

Such condition was a stumbling block in the way of the petitioner to claim the desired annual increments

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Contention was aggrieved employee by any final order under Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 would prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal

Validity

Only a person in government service or who was a member of a civil service of the province or who held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province or any employee serving in any court or tribunal being aggrieved by an order could prefer an appeal before the Service Tribunal

Petitioner being a retired person did not fall within the definition of 'employee', therefore had no remedy of appeal

Provisions of Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 was not applicable to the petitioner and therefore, the Authorities by initiating the proceedings thereunder against the petitioner went out of the law and exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law

High Court could control action of an administrative or executive officer by an appropriate order if he had gone out of law i.e. exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or wrongly denied or omitted to exercise a jurisdiction or where the law under which he acted prescribed the manner in which he was to act, materially departed from the law

Impugned orders and notices were void ab initio

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Petitioners being aggrieved from the promotion of junior colleague contended that impugned order of promotion was against fairness, rules and inter se seniority and liable to be declared as illegal

Validity

For resolution of issues relating to terms and conditions of service, Service Tribunal had the exclusive jurisdiction and the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked

Order of departmental authority, even though without jurisdiction or mala fide did not confer upon High Court jurisdiction to act in a matter in view of constitutional ouster as contained in Art.212 of the Constitution and the Service Tribunal had complete jurisdiction to interfere in such matters

Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable.