Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 225426
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Shagufta Shaheen & others vs FBR, etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 225426. In this matter between Shagufta Shaheen & others and FBR, etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif DECISION DATE: 06-AUG-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-361-2022 CITATION: 2025 IHC 225426 PARTIES: Shagufta Shaheen & others VS FBR, etc LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Service, Other REMARKS: Second Round of litigation by clerical staff of customs collectorate who passed exam for appointment as inspectors in 2003 but their promotion has been withheld. They are being kept in waiting fresh syllabus for fresh exam, has been announced. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No. 361 of 2022
Shagufta Shaheen and others
Versus
Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad through its Chairman and others.
Petitioner By : Rana Samreen Akhtar, Advocate Respondent By : Muhammad Irshad Chaudhry, Advocate Ms. Shaista Tabassum, AAG.
Date of Hearing : 16.06.2025
MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners seeks direction to the respondents to restore the waiting list of duly qualified candidates, including the petitioners, who had successfully passed the Departmental Promotion Examination for the post of Inspector (Customs) in the year 2003, and to consider the petitioners for promotion against the vacancies arising under the departmental promotion quota, with effect from the respective dates on which such vacancies occurred, their names having been duly included in the said waiting list. 2. The facts material to the adjudication of the present petition shall be considered at a subsequent stage in this judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned circular dated 28.10.2018 and the rejection order dated 22.09.2021 are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and without lawful authority. It is argued that rules framed under a statute, as well as executive instructions, notifications, and orders, cannot be given retrospective effect, and any vested rights accrued to a civil se rvant under repealed rules shall remain protected and enforceable. It is further contended
P a g e | 2 W.P. No. 361-2024 Shagufta Shaheen, etc v.FBR, etc.
that, as per Government Instructions contained at Serial No. 122, Chapter-2 of the ESTACODE 2015, appointments under the promotion quota ought to have been made prio r to the advertisement of posts for direct recruitment, in line with the Government’s Recruitment Policy, so as to preserve the seniority and rights of eligible departmental candidates. In this regard, it is submitted that while the Inland Revenue Wing of the FBR had initiated the process of promotions before the issuance of the advertisement for direct recruitment of Inspectors (IR), through Circular dated 11.09.2014, no corresponding action was taken by the Customs Wing. Due to the inordinate delay in con sidering the promotion cases of employees in the Customs Department against the 50% departmental quota, such employees have been unjustly deprived of their rightful seniority, as direct recruits have been appointed and placed above them, causing irreversible damage to their service careers. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is further argued that it is highly unjust and demoralizing that a departmental employee possessing requisite qualifications, enriched with years of experience, and having successfu lly passed the prescribed departmental examination is denied promotion solely due to administrative inaction, while fresh appointees are granted seniority over them. Counsel emphasizes that the respondents are legally bound to treat all similarly placed em ployees equitably, and cannot arbitrarily extend benefits to certain individuals while depriving others of the same. Such selective treatment is discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 18, 25, 27, 37, and 38 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to the omissions and inefficiencies of the respondents. It is a settled principle of law that no individual shall be penalized for the acts or omissions of the State or its functionaries. It is further submitted that career progression and service planning is the responsibility of the employer, and in the
P a g e | 3 W.P. No. 361-2024 Shagufta Shaheen, etc v.FBR, etc.
instant case, the respondents have failed to discharge their legal and administrative obligations in acc ordance with the applicable laws, policies, and service rules. The petitioners have a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion, and to be afforded the same terms, conditions, and benefits of service as are available to other similarly situated civil servants. The impugned actions/inactions/delays on the part of the respondents are violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectancy. Furthermore, by denying the petitioners the benefits and emoluments associated with the higher posts and grades fo r which they are otherwise eligible, the respondents have deprived them of their means of livelihood, in derogation of the State’s constitutional obligation to promote social justice. Hence, the instant writ petition 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 have submitted written comments, wherein it has been stated as per the prayer clause the petitioners have sought restoration of the waiting list of duly qualified candidates, who passed the departmental promotion examination in 2003 and consideration of petitioners for the promotion , who had already qualified the departmental promotion examination. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has herself prayed for consideration of her case for promotion. It is submitted that the question of consideration for promotion relates to the "eligibility" of a civil servant for promotion. Hence, this petition pertains to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant as spelled out in Section 3(1) of the Civil Servant Act, 1973; that the rules made vide SRO. No 57(1)/77 date 05-01-1977 by the Government in exercise of power conferred under sub -rule (2) of rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer (APT) Rules, 1973 which were repealed later on. And new rules for recruitment/promotion policy were framed i n pursuance to power conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (APT) Rules,
P a g e | 4 W.P. No. 361-2024 Shagufta Shaheen, etc v.FBR, etc.
1973 and Section 7(1)(b)(i) & (ii) of FPSC Ordinance, 1977. The aforesaid rules show that those were made under the mandate of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 which deals with the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, hence, the case/petition of the petitioner pertains to the terms and conditions of service which fall squarely within the four corners of the jurisdiction of the Feder al Service Tribunal excl usively; that it is submitted that the Federal Service Tribunal has got the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary matters in terms of provisions of Section 3(2) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The aforesaid section 3(2) is reproduced as under: "A Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary matters."
In these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the jurisdiction of this High Court stands ousted. Hence, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel s for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners entered into Government Service as Lower Division Clerk ( BS-05) in Respondent Department i.e. FBR, Presently all petitioners are posted in Model Customs Collectorate, Hydarabad . As per the provision s of recruitment Rules, notified vide SRO No. 57 (1) /77 dated 05.01.1977, 50 % of the posts of Inspector Customs/Intelligence Officer are reserved for departmental promotion Quota a nd remaining 50% seats are reserved for initial appointment. Under the said provisions, the posts reserved for department al promotion quota are to be filled
P a g e | 5 W.P. No. 361-2024 Shagufta Shaheen, etc v.FBR, etc.
amongst Ministerial Staff, who qualify the Departmental Promotion Examination (DPE) for promotion to the post of inspector. The Respondent Collectorate conducted DPE in the year 2003, for promotion to the post of Inspector Customs (BS -12) (now BS -16) against 50% departmental promotion quota. The process of seniority wise promotion of the candidates, who qualified departmental examination, remained under consideration till the year 2009 but after that the same was withheld by the collectorate for uncertain reasons. However, the Collectorate of Customs in this regard requested the Board time and again for promotion of remaining qualified employees including the petitioners but no response was received from the Board. Later on, in October, 2018, the impugned circular was issued. The petitioners are working against the post of inspector on acting charge on the recommendation of competent authority being qualifiers of departmental promotion ex ams, vide office order C.No.CB/Misc/Prom/MCC/2019 1002 dated 03.02.2020 , but were denied to be considered for regular promotion , inspite of availability of vacant seats. The petitioner earlier filed writ petition 904/2019 and subsequently Crl. Original No. 127/2020 against the impugned circular dated 28.10.2018 and rejection order 22.09.2021 respectively. The Crl. Original was dismissed , vide order dated 22.10.2021 with permission to file fresh writ petition. 7. In the present case, the issue pertains to th e question of promotion of a civil servant, which inherently relates to his "eligibility" for promotion within the framework of service law. The issue raised falls directly within the scope of the “terms and conditions of service” of a civil servant as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The rules governing the promotion and appointment of civil servants were originally framed through SRO No. 57(1)/77 dated 05 -01-1977 by the Federal
P a g e | 6 W.P. No. 361-2024 Shagufta Shaheen, etc v.FBR, etc.
Government, in the exercise of powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 (APT Rules). Subsequently, these rules were repealed and replaced with a revised set of rules and policies, again framed pursuant to sub -rule (2) of Rule 3 of the APT Rules, 1973, read with Section 7(1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977. The promulgated rules, both repealed and current, derive their legal sanctity and enforceability from the Civil Servants Act, 1973, whi ch is a comprehensive statute regulating the terms and conditions of the service of civil servants in Pakistan. Accordingly, any grievance arising out of, or in connection with, matters concerning promotion , including eligibility, merit, seniority, and the interpretation of the aforementioned rules, constitutes a service matter within the domain of the service law framework. 8. The Federal Service Tribunal, constituted under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including but not limited to promotion, appointment, transfer, seniority, eligibility, and disciplinary proceedings. This exclusivity of jurisdiction is statutorily enshr ined in Section 3(2) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which is reproduced herein below for ease of reference: “A Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary matters.” 9. In light of the express bar contained in the aforementioned provision, the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is explicitly ousted in respect of such matters, which fall within the exclusive competence of the Federal Service Tribunal.
P a g e | 7 W.P. No. 361-2024 Shagufta Shaheen, etc v.FBR, etc.
10. In view of the foregoing, the instant writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable, therefore, accordingly dismissed and connected CMs are accordingly disposed o f. However, the petitioners are at liberty, if aggrieved by any act or omission concerning their promotion or eligibility thereto, have an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available before the learned Federal Service Tribunal, for redressal of their grievances.
(MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE
Announced in open Court on ___08.2025
JUDGE **//Kamran//**