Pakistan Case Law
2005 SCMR 1603

ANWAR PARVEZ vs CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2005 SCMR 1603
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.37-P of 2004
Date2005-06-24
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Nasir-ul-Mulk
Authored bySardar Muhammad Raza Khan
ResultCase remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his compulsory retirement in limine. The Tribunal held that the petitioner, an employee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, was not a 'civil servant' under the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, and thus lacked standing. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a dismissal order passed under the N.-W.F.P. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Court held that Section 10 of the Ordinance of 2000 acts as a special law that overrides other provisions, granting the Service Tribunal jurisdiction to hear appeals from any person aggrieved by a final order under that Ordinance, regardless of their status as a 'civil servant' under general statutes. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, converted the petition into an appeal, and remanded the matter to the Service Tribunal for a decision on the merits.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a final order passed under the N.-W.F.P. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  • Is an employee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education entitled to appeal to the Service Tribunal against an order of compulsory retirement under the N.-W.F.P. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 override the definition of 'civil servant' in the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973 regarding the right to appeal?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 2(b), N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973
  • Section 3, N.-W.F.P. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
  • Section 10, N.-W.F.P. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
  • N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974
service lawcompulsory retirementservice tribunal jurisdictionspecial lawcivil servant statusremoval from service

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Anwar Parvez, a former Assistant, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Abbottabad seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 9-12-2003 of the learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal whereby his appeal against compulsory retirement from service was dismissed in limine on the ground that under section 2(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, he being an employee of the Board, was not a civil servant.

2. We have heard Mr. Khushdil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Malik Manzoor Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents. The compulsory retirement was ordered under section 3 of N.- W.F.P. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Section 10 thereof, dealing with appeals, categorically lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for, the time being in force, any person aggrieved by any final order shall prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal established under N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974. This law being the latest special law has provided a forum of appeal to anyone who is proceeded against under the Ordinance of 2000.

Hence, we hold that the appeal was competent before the Tribunal which was wrongly dismissed.

Consequently, the petition after conversion into appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal for decision on merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.