Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMAD, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION, LAHORE VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C.S.) 241
[Lahore High Court]
Before Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
MANZOOR AHMAD, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION, LAHORE
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and 3 others
Writ Petition No. 12348' of 1996 in Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 1 and 3 of 1996, decided on 20th August, 1996.
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Transfer of civil servant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Article 212 of the Constitution envisages resolution of disputes pertaining to terms and conditions of service of civil servants by Service Tribunal and not by the High Court‑‑‑Constitutional intent must be accepted and enforced‑‑‑‑Grounds of mala fides, coram non judice, jurisdictional errors, illegalities and irregularities could be urged before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Merely because order had been procured by influence of Minister, High Court would not bypass Art. 212 of the Constitution and exercise powers under Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Civil servant, if so advised, could approach relevant forum for vindication of his rights.
Mahmood‑ul‑Islam for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Respondent No. 3
ORDER
Petitioner apparently aggrieved by the order of his transfer dated 10th July, 1996, called in question the same through this Constitutional petition on the ground that the same was procured under the influence of the Minister, who is nobody in the Scheme of law.
2. This Court, vide order dated 16‑7‑1996, called for report and in the meanwhile suspended the operation of the order dated 10‑7‑1996. Subsequently respondent No.3 filed C.M. 3/96 for fixation of the case and re‑call of the order of suspension dated 16‑7‑1996. Apparently, since the matter was not being heard/listed in this Court, respondent No.3 filed C.P.L.A. No. 1705‑L of 1996, and also applied for interim injunction. Vide order dated 13‑8‑1996, the Supreme Court has asked this Court to hear L.M.3/96 on 20th August 1996 i.e. today. Accordingly, the C.M. as well as the main petition has been heard and is disposed of.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bar of Article 212(2) of the Constitution does not apply in this case as the impugned order has been procured under the influence of the Minister. Reliance for this purpose is placed on Annexure‑A. This contention may be having some force in law but the real question before me is as to who should decide this question. The Constitution envisages the resolution of disputes pertaining to terms and conditions of civil servants by a Tribunal created under Article 212 and not by this Court. The constitutional intent has to be accepted and enforced. The grounds of mala fides, coram non judice, jurisdictional errors, illegalities and irregularities are all grounds which can be urged before the Service Tribunal. I find no force m the submission of the learned counsel that merely because the order has been procured by influence of a Minister, this Court should bypass Article 212 and exercise the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. In this connection I respectfully rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 24‑4‑1996, passed in C. P.L.A. No.1232‑L of 1996.
4. For the reasons noted above, this petition is dismissed. If so advised, the petitioner may approach the relevant forum for vindication of his‑rights.
A.A./M-171/L Petition dismissed