Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TARIQ HEHMOOD VS Respondent: FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATION through Secretary, IslamabadHonorable Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Mrs. Qaiser IqbalGohar Iqbal and Iqbal Shah,Sanaullah Noor Ghori along with Raja Iviz Mehmood
2008 P L C (C
2008 P L C (C.S.) 141
[Karachi High Court]
Before Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal, J
TARIQ HEHMOOD and 17 others
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATION through Secretary, Islamabad
Constitutional Petition No.1616 of 2005, decided on 5th April, 2006.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S. 4---Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), Ss.8 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Promotion and Seniority---Implementation of order of the Service Tribunal---Order of the Service Tribunal having not been complied with by the authorities for almost a year, appellants/petitioners had filed the petition seeking a direction against the respondents to implement the order of the Service Tribunal---Service Tribunal was a creature of the Constitution required to adjudicate upon the terms and conditions to civil servants and hear appeals against the decisions of the Government in that respect---Decisions of the Tribunal were required to be followed as a matter of law---In the present case such directions were not obeyed---Court was under a constitutional duty to direct authorities to do what they were required to do within a reasonable time---Power to punish for contempt being not available with the Service Tribunal, recourse to filing a petition was eminently the only remedy available to the petitioners---Petition was allowed with direction to authorities to amend the seniority list in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal and to convene a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, within a specified period.
Gohar Iqbal and Iqbal Shah for Petitioners.
Sanaullah Noor Ghori along with Raja Iviz Mehmood, Law Officer for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
ORDER SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.---Since all parties are duly represented and have been heard at length, we decide to 'admit this petition and finally dispose it of as the facts and legal questions are simple.
2. The petitioners who were working as Assistant Engineers in the respondent No.2 Corporation were eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Divisional Engineer and, therefore, their cases were not considered when the D.P.C. was held for selecting candidates for promotion to the position of the Assistant Divisional Engineer. The list of promotees issued consequently was questioned by the petitioner upon failing to obtain redress they moved the Federal Service Tribunal through appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act and 18 appeals were heard and allowed by a common order, dated 22-12-2004 whereby respondent No.2 was directed to prepare a final seniority list and to place the cases of the petitioners before the D.P.C. and promote them.
3. It seems that the order of the Service Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents for almost a year whereupon the petitioner filed this petition seeking a direction against the respondent to implement the order of the Service Tribunal.
4. The respondent contended that petition for leave to appeal had been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court against the decision of some of the appeals decided by the Service Tribunal, however, no order of the Honourable Supreme Court suspending the operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal has been placed before us.
5. At the hearing, however, it was averred on behalf of the respondents that the Honourable Supreme Court had suspended the operation of an order of the Service Tribunal, dated 28-5-2004 passed in. Appeal No.152(P)/(C.S.) of 2001 filed by respondent No.2 against one Haque Dad and 10 others. Since the effect of the judgment impugned in the petition for leave to appeal had been suspended no seniority list could be prepared.
6. We regret to say that this contention has no force at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a copy of the memo. of Appeal No.152(P)/(C.S.) of 2001 wherein a notification dated 13-3-2001was impugned. It seems that the said notification purported to recall an earlier notification dated 12-5-1995 whereby officers possessing B.Tech. (Hons.) degree were promoted. This notification, however, was declared to be invalid by the Tribunal and the directions were given to correct the seniority list. It is pertinent to mention that none of the petitioners was a party to those proceedings.
7. In the instant case, however, the petitioners were found to be eligible for promotion, expressed direction was given to the respondent No.2 to amend the seniority list accordingly and thereafter hold a meeting of the D.P.C. to determine the fitness of the petitioners for promotion. This order has admittedly not been complied with, obviously the order in the other cases is not binding on the petitioner and the mere fact that a direction to amend the seniority list in the context of some officers does not purport to suspend the respondents obligations to keep the seniority list updated particularly in accordance with the directions of the appropriate Service Tribunal.
8. The Service Tribunal is indeed a creature of the Constitution required to adjudicate upon the terms and conditions of civil servants and hear appeals against the decision of the Government in this respect. Obviously, its directions are required to be followed as a matter of law. In case such directions are not obeyed, this Court would be under a constitutional duty to direct the respondents to do what they are required to do within a reasonable time since the power to punish for contempt is not available with the Tribunal, recourse to filing a petition is eminently the only remedy available with the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, we would allow this petition and direct the respondents to amend, the seniority list in accordance with the directions of-the Tribunal within two weeks from today and convene a meeting of the D.P.C. within one month thereafter. Failure to comply with the decision would be treated as contempt of this Court and would be punished accordingly.
H.B.T./T-16/K Petition allowed.