Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHIZAR HAYAT VS Respondent: SECRETARY, FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 1423
[Lahore High Court]
Before Mian Nazir Akhtar, J
Mian KHIZAR HAYAT
versus
SECRETARY FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE
Writ Petition No. 1058 of 1998/BWP, decided on 26th March, 1998.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)--
----Ss. 2(b) & 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212-- Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Petitioner who was a retired civil servant, had agitated matter of his pension before High Court in a Constitutional petition---Petitioner fell within definition of "civil servant" as given in S. 2(b) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and being a civil servant, could validly file appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal for redress of his grievance---Constitutional petition filed by petitioner, was not maintainable in circumstances.
M. Akhtar Munir Pirzada for Petitioner.
ORDER
In the comments submitted by the respondent it has been stated in para. 3 that the pension sanctioning authority sanctioned the pension of the petitioner after having received ' No Demand Certificate' from the concerned quarters; that it was brought to the notice of the authority that the petitioner was involved in a matter relating to financial loss; that in the meeting of Public Account Committee held on 11-4-1995 direction was issued to the department that an inquiry to probe into fictitious billing of work and payment against the same be held within three months and that inquiry was completed and the matter had to be placed before the Public Accounts Committee for consideration in the next meeting for final decision.
2. The learned A.A.-G. has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner being a civil servant (retired) can file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal for redress of his grievance and that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. In reply the petitioner's learned counsel has placed reliance on an unreported judgment passed by my learned brother Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J. in Writ Petition No. 2569/BWP on 5-11-1997 in which disciplinary action initiated against a retired civil servant was challenged through a Constitutional petition which was allowed on merits declaring the disciplinary proceedings to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The objection raised by the learned A.A.-G. appears to carry weight. The expression 'civil servant' has been defined under section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 as under:--
2(b) "Civil servant" means a person who is or who has been member of a civil service of the Province or holds or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province but does not include ---
(i) a person who is or who has been on deputation to the province from the Federation or any other Province or authority;
(ii) a person who is or has been employed on contract, or on work charged basis, or who is or has been paid from contingencies; or
(iii) a person who is or has been a worker or 'workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923).
3. It clearly shows that a person who has been a member of civil service of the Province or who had held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province was ordered by the definition. Thus, all civil servants who have retired, dismissed or removed from service can agitate their grievance relating to any of the terms and conditions of their service before the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act. The judgment in the unreported case (W.P. 2569 of 1997/BWP) relied upon by the petitioner's learned counsel is distinguishable because it is relatable purely to disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired civil servant and not in respect of a final order passed by a departmental authority as contemplated under section 4 of the Act, Therefore, it was observed in the judgment that a retired civil servant ceased to be in service of the Government and was no longer a civil servant for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings against him under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Government instructions dated 7-9-1992 referred to in para. 6 of the judgment are relevant for the limited purposes of disciplinary proceedings qua a retired civil servant and cannot be pressed against the express provisions of the Act, where-under a retired civil servant can competently file an appeal before the Tribunal.
4. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine as being incompetent.
H.B.T./K-63/L Petition dismissed.