Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NADIR KHAN VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER, ZHOB DIVISION, LORALAI, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERHonorable Justice Justice (R.) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman and Syed Bilal AhmedAbdul Rehman Siddiqui,Hashim Khan
2008 P L C (C
2008 P L C (C.S.) 1119
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Justice (R.) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman and Syed Bilal Ahmed, Member
NADIR KHAN and another
Versus
COMMISSIONER, ZHOB DIVISION, LORALAI, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER and others
Appeals Nos.17(Q)(C.S.) of 2001, 9(Q)(C.S.) of 2003 and 1(Q)(C.S.) of 2007, decided on 4th March, 2008.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S. 4---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Maintainability---Right which was claimed by appellants was the right to appoint/maintain levies against the different posts---Appellants had made claim regarding their rights over the services of the `Havaldar and Foot (Piada) Sepoys' in the Federal Levies on the ground of the superior right of their respective forefathers for the said purpose---Dispute raised in all said appeals had made it manifest that neither the appellants nor the causes of grievance were envisaged within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal---Appellants neither were civil servants under Civil Servants Act, 1973 nor they had protection in respect of any terms and conditions of service as contemplated under Art.212 or 240 of the Constitution---Controversy related to a dispute of civil nature wherein both contending parties were claiming their respective rights upon the basis of inheritance, and claiming their entitlement over maintenance of services of Federal Levies---Remedy, if any, did not lie with the Service Tribunal which was a forum of exclusive, but limited jurisdiction.
Abdul Rehman Siddiqui for Appellant (in Appeal No.17(Q)(C.S.) of 2001) and M. Ramzan Khan for Appellant (in Appeals Nos.9(Q)(C.S.) of 2003 and 1(Q)(C.S.) of 2007).
Hashim Khan for Private Respondents.
Rashid Anwar, S.O. Safron as Departmental Representative.
Date of hearing; 4th March, 2008.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE (R.) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).---Through this common judgment we propose to decide the above mentioned appeals, as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Appeal No.17(Q)(C.S.) of 2001: This appeal has been filed by Nadir Khan son of Mitha Khan on the basis that some levies posts were sanctioned for the area of Kibzai tribe. Five such posts were established within the jurisdiction of Laqaband Thana with the following details: --
(i) Devali Post, (ii) Ahmed Zai Post, (iii) Laqaband Post, (iv) Zarozai Post and (v) Tangsar Post.
It is submitted that the grandfather of the appellant namely Malik Sahib Khan was given Band Levies Post. The said conferment was allegedly made upon Malik Sahib Khan aforesaid as head of the family/sub-Tribe. In this capacity the said predecessor-in-interest of the appellant had the right to maintain a Havaldar and corresponding number of Footmen (Piada) of the Levies. According to the appellant this right of his grandfather was inherited by Mitha Khan, the father of the appellant and Malik Shaikh Ahmed, uncle of the appellant. The Appellant claims the said right unto himself. The claim of Nadir Khan is against respondents Nos.3 and 4 namely Dadan son of Baran and Akhtar son of Dadan on the ground that he had been conferred the right of being the service holder of the levies posts and that respondents Nos.3 and 4 mentioned above, had no such right.
3. Appeal No.9(Q)(C.S.) of 2003: Haji Abdul Rehman, appellant claims that his father Malik Barat Khan, was the Head and Malik of the sub-Tribe and in that capacity had the right to maintain the services of the Levies personnel since before the year 1916. This appellant claims the said right unto himself claiming himself to be the real son of Malik Naziq son of Malik Barat. He claims his right to be superior than that of Malik Jalal Khan, the claimant.
While this appeal was pending adjudication the appellant filed Appeal No.1(Q)(C.S.) of 2007 on 20-1-2007 precisely upon the same cause of grievance and based upon the same alleged right.
4. A perusal of the dispute raised in all the aforementioned appeals makes it manifest that neither the appellants nor the cause of grievance are envisaged within the purview of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The appellants are neither members of All Pakistan Service or of a Civil Service of the Federation and also cannot claim to be holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. The right which is claimed is the right to appoint/maintain Levies against the different posts. The appellants herein made claim regarding their rights over the services of the Havaldar and Foot (Piada) Sepoys in the Federal Levies on the ground of the superior right of their respective forefathers for the said purpose. It was in this context that various orders were made by the Political Agent Zhob or the Commissioner, Zhob Division or the Home Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Home and Tribal Affairs Department, settling the right of inheritance to maintain the Levies services inter se the parties.
5. We are of the considered view that neither the appellants are civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 nor they have protection in respect of any terms and conditions of service as contemplated under Article 212 or Article 240 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The controversy relates to a dispute of civil nature wherein both the contending parties are claiming their respective rights upon the basis of inheritance and claiming their entitlements over maintenance of services of Federal Levies stated above. The remedy if any does not lie with this Tribunal which is a forum of exclusive but limited jurisdiction.
6. Neither the status nor the nature of controversy is such as to attract the provisions of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 this Court, thus, has no jurisdiction to try the dispute in hand.
7. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed in limine.
8. Parties be informed.
H.B.T./32-FST Appeals dismissed.