DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, NAROWAL and others vs ANSAR PERVAIZ
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by government functionaries against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had modified the respondents' penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The respondents, employed as Dispensers in the Health Department for approximately 14 to 15 years, were initially appointed against leave vacancies and subsequently faced termination due to non-regularization of their services. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in converting the penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement given the respondents' long tenure. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted within its discretion, noting that the petitioners could not benefit from their own prior inaction regarding the respondents' employment status over such a significant period. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitions did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance as required under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to mitigate the penalty based on the length of service.
- Does the conversion of a penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement by a Service Tribunal constitute a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Can government authorities benefit from their own inaction regarding the regularization of employees who have served for a long duration?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioners, Government functionaries, seek leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 27-10-2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeals Nos.841 and 842 of 2003.
2. The respondents were appointed as Dispensers in the Health Department, District Narowal. By order, dated 30-1-2003, they were directed to get their service regularized within 90 days failing which they would be considered to be out of service w,e,f, 1-5-2003. Their representations were rejected by the departmental authorities on 24-4-2003 and 5-4-2003 respectively. Therefore, they moved the Tribunal by means of Appeals Nos.841 and 842 of 2003, which were partly allowed by the impugned judgment, dated 27-10-2003 whereby their penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement w,e,f, 10-5-2003.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents had been originally appointed against leave vacancies. However, they managed to continue in service for a period of fifteen years or so. Therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to have converted their removal from service into compulsory retirement from service.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the caveat submitted that the respondents had rendered satisfactory service for more than 15 years. Therefore, their removal from service was not justified.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record. Admittedly, the respondents had rendered about 14/15 years' service. The petitioners could not take benefit of their inaction at the relevant time. The Tribunal in the facts and the circumstances of the case was quite justified in converting the penalty of removal of the respondents from service into compulsory retirement. In any case, these petitions do not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.