Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 249247
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Arsalan Muddasar Memon vs Associated Press of Pakistan etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 249247. In this matter between Arsalan Muddasar Memon and Associated Press of Pakistan 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 Arbab Muhammad Tahir) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir DECISION DATE: 03-JUL-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-4175-2022 CITATION: 2025 IHC 249247 PARTIES: Arsalan Muddasar Memon VS Associated Press of Pakistan etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Service, Other REMARKS: Petitioner applied for Project post through formal channel. Post his selection, his lien has been withdrawn. Impugns withdrawal. ============================================================ Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
W.P. No. 4175-2022
Arsalan Muddasar Memon Versus Associated Press of Pakistan Corporation and another
W.P. No. 1327-2024
Arsalan Muddasar Memon Versus Federal Ministry of Finance through its Secretary and others
W.P. No. 4176-2022
Shakeel Muhammad Versus Associated Press of Pakistan Corporation and another
Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J. - The petitioner - Arsalan Muddasa r Memon has filed two petitions, (i) W.P. No.4175/2022 assailing Office Order, dated 01.11.2022 issued by the Associated Press of Pakistan Corporation (hereinafter “APPC”) and (ii) W.P. No. 1327/2024 assailing Office Memorandum, dated 18.04.2022 issued by the Finance Division, whereas, W.P. No. 4176/2022 has been filed by Shakeel Ahmed assailing office order, dated 01.11.2022 issued by the APPC. All the petitions involve common questions of law and facts; therefore, they are being decide d through this common judgment. Petitioners by : Mr Ali Murad Baloch, Advocate.
Respondent APP by : Ms Afshan Saeed, Advocate.
Federation by : Mr Usman Rasool Ghuman, Asstt. Attorney General. Mr Imran Hussain, Section Officer (Legal), Finance Division.
Date(s) of Hearing : 14.05.2025
Page - 2 W.P. No.4175/2022, 1327/2024 & 4176/2022
2. Briefly, the facts are that t he petitioners are regular employees of the APPC . The petitioner-Arsalan Mudassar had been serving the APPC as Computer Operator, whereas, the petitioner-Shakeel Muhammad as Junior Computer Technician . They applied for appointment to contractual project posts in the PSDP funded project titled ‘Restructuring of News Operation by Replacing Outdated Equipment with Modern Cutting Edge Technology ” after obtaining NOCs from the APPC . Accordingly, Arsalan Mudassar was appointed as Chief Engineer whereas, Shakil Muhammad as Editor. They filed respective applications before the APPC for grant of lien against their permanent posts . Consequently, Arsalan Mudassar was allowed lien against his permanent posts for the period of the project, whereas, Shakil Muhammad was extended the same benefit for a period of one year vide letters, dated 06.12.2021 and 08.12.2021, respectively. Vide the impugned letters, dated 01.11.2022, the APPC directed the petitioners to report for duty against their permanent posts by tendering resignations against project posts and their failure to do so would result into dismissal of their service as per rules, hence these petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners are regular employees of APCC; that they applied for the project posts after obtaining no objection certificates; that they joined the project posts after obtaining lien for a specific period ; that the said lien was allowed to the petitioners in accordance with law; that the lien once granted cannot be revoked subsequently; that the petitioners acted on the representation of the department that they shall retain lien against their permanent posts; that the impugned letters are against the spirit of law; that the petitioners are entitled to the right of being dealt with fairly and in accordance with law; that the petitioners shall not suffer due t o the wrong done by the department; that the Finance Division lacks the authority to
Page - 3 W.P. No.4175/2022, 1327/2024 & 4176/2022
interfere with policies/rules relating to terms and conditions of service; that the impugned orders are against the law and liable to be dismissed.
4. Conversely, learned Assistant Attorney General assisted by learned counsel for APPC has argued that the petitioners have joined the project posts with their free will and consent and shall face consequences ; that observance of the instructions issued by th e Finance Division is mandatory; that joining the contract project service amounted to service break; that no adverse action has been taken against the petitioners giving rise to any cause of grievance to the petitioners; that the petitioners have the option to retain either the project post or join their permanent posts; that the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioners are regular employees of APPC . After obtaining no objection certificates , they applied for the contractual PSDP funded project posts and were subsequently appointed. They were also granted lien against their permanent posts by the ir parent department i.e. APPC. The controversy sparked when the APPC issued impugned letter, dated 01.11.2022, the relevant portion where of is reproduced below.-
“According to Federal Government Instructions, rules/policy, if any Government employee is selected on a project post, he/she will have to resign from Government service before appointment on project post. Since grant of lien to you is contrary to the rules, therefore, you are directed to resign from the project post and report for duty on your regular post of Computer Operator (Grade -IV), APPC, Islamabad immediately, failing which you will be dismissed from service as per rules.”
7. The above letters were issued to the petitioner s in pursuance of the Finance Division’s Office Memorandum, dated
Page - 4 W.P. No.4175/2022, 1327/2024 & 4176/2022
18.04.2022 titled „Standard Pay Package for the Project Staff Directly Recruited for Development Projects Funded from PSDP‟ (hereinafter the “O.M.”), issued with the approval of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council , being impugned through W.P. No. 1327/2024. The O.M. provides for the pay package for persons appointed in different pay scales on project posts, subject to conditions prescribed in paragraph 2 thereof. The condition mentioned in clause (vi) of paragraph 2 of the O.M. is relevant, which reads as follows.-
“Government employees may apply for project posts. However, if any Government employee is selected on a project post, he/she will have to resign from Government service before appointment on project post.”
8. It was argued on behalf of petitioners that they were granted respective liens against their permanent posts in December, 2021, whereas, the impugned O.M. has been issued later in time i.e. on 18.04.2022, hence the same is not applicable to their case. The petitioner has annexed his salary slip (month of October-2022) at page 25 of the petition, which shows that he is drawing fixed basic pay @125,000/ - per month admissible to BPS-18. The salary of the petitioner was fixed in terms of Office Memorandum , dated 19.07.2017 , which too was issued by the Finance Division titled „Standard Pay Package for the Project Staff Directly Recruited for Development Projects Funded from PSDP‟ . It is sig nificant to note that the even clause (vi) of paragraph 2 of this Office Memorandum also prescribes the condition of tendering resignation by Government employee if appointed on a project post. In fact through the O.M., dated 18.04.2022, the project pay scales earlier provided in the earlier O.M., dated 19.07.2017 were revised, leaving the other conditions substantially unchanged. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, misconceived.
Page - 5 W.P. No.4175/2022, 1327/2024 & 4176/2022
9. The APPC, through the impugned letters has highlighted the applicable legal procedure for appointment to PSDP funded project and has advised them to follow the legal procedure and has further informed them of the consequences to follow in case of non-compliance. The impugne d letters in no way can be treated as adverse orders. The lien was granted by the APPC in derogation of the conditions stipulated in the O.M. and earlier Office Memorandum, dated 19.07.2017. A void order, being legally invalid from its inception, cannot create any enforceable rights or obligations. Any subsequent actions or decisions based on a void or der are also considered invalid. An order which has no legal force even if is acted upon can be recalled, rescinded and withdrawn at any subsequent stage.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, through C.Ms. No.4161/2022 (in W.P. No4175) and C.M. No.4163/2022 (in W.P. No.4176/2022) has placed on record copy of the Office Order, dated 04.11.2022 , whereby the services of the petitioners from the project posts have been terminated with direction to re -join their previous regular posts in the APPC. Through the referred civil miscellaneous applications, the petitioners have merely prayed for suspension of the said termination letters till final disposal of t he main petitions. Neither separate petitions challenging the said termination orders were filed nor were any proceedings instituted seeking suitable amendment in the instant petition concerning the termination orders. It has been mentioned by respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply that the petitioners have already joined the service of the parent department -APPC on 07.11.2022. Article 199(1A) of the Constitution unambiguously bars suo motu exercise of jurisdiction by this Court beyond the contents of any ap plication filed Article 199(1) of the Constitution. No relief , except their suspension pending disposal of the termination orders, was sought through the
Page - 6 W.P. No.4175/2022, 1327/2024 & 4176/2022
application, thus this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality or otherwise of the termination orders in the instant petitions.
11. During proceedings of the instant petitions, reports were sought from different department, including Accountant General Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad (hereinafter “AGPR”). The AGPR in its reply has mentioned that in terms of para 2(1) (b)(ii) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 the contract service in terms of CSR-361 is not a qualifying service for pension and that the contractual service of the petitioners has caused an interruption in their service, therefore, their previous service is liable to forfeiture in terms of CSR 420 and the lien against their posts stands void. While reply of the AGPR is backed by substantive legal provisions, yet the petitioners while joining the service of project posts acted on the representation of the department that they shall retain lien against their regular posts, hence they cannot be subjected to forfeiture of their service or service interruption, for the fault of the employer - APPC.
12. Insofar as the challenge to the O.M. is concerned, the petitioners failed to point out that the conditions stipulated therein are arbitrary, discriminatory or in any manner violative of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution and the law. It is well within the domain of the Federal Government to formulate policies to achieve a particular purpose, as long as the same is not in con flict with the Constitution and the law . The admissibility of salary fixed in the O.M. h as specifically been subjected to conditions mentioned therein and one such condition was tendering resignation before appointment on project post funded from PSDP. Even otherwise, this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the policy making powers of the Federal Government.
Page - 7 W.P. No.4175/2022, 1327/2024 & 4176/2022
13. The crux of the above discussion is that the provisions of the O.M. as well as the earlier Office Memorandum, dated 19.07.2017, were fully applicable to the petitioners. Keeping in view the fact that the employer-APPC had allowed lien to the petitioners against their regular posts, it rightly afforded an opportunity to the petitioners vide the impugned letters to re-join their regular posts due to other legal implications. As the petitioner did not resign from their regular posts and acted on the representation of the department regarding lien, therefore, they cannot be punished in the shape of forfeiture of their service as the fault lies on part of the department-APPC as well.
14. For what has been discussed above, the petitions are without merit and are, therefore, accordingly dismissed. A copy o f this order is directed to be served on the Secretaries, Establishment Division, Finance Division and Planning and Development Division to ensure that the conditions stipulated in the O.M. issued by the Finance Division are strictly complied with. In this regard the referred Divisions may conduct an exercise , not only to their extent, but in all the projects funded from PSDP to ensure that Government servants before their appointment on PSDP funded project posts resign from their regular posts and that the provisions of the O.M. are not circumvented through other modes i.e. grant of lien, etc.
(ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR) JUDGE
Announced in the open Court on .07.2025.
JUDGE
Approved for reporting. Luqman Khan/*