Lt.Cdr., (Rtd.P.N.) ENGINEER ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO vs KARACHI PORT TRUST and 2 others
The petitioner, a retired naval officer, filed a constitutional petition seeking a direction for the Karachi Port Trust to decide his pending departmental appeal, which had remained undecided since August 1996. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to compel a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal, given the existence of a statutory remedy under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the petitioner had an alternative, efficacious remedy under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which allows an aggrieved person to approach the Federal Service Tribunal if a departmental appeal remains undecided for ninety days. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner could approach the Service Tribunal, which might consider condoning the delay under the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the administrative delay by the respondents, noting it could potentially imply mala fide, though it declined to rule on that issue.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal when a remedy exists before the Service Tribunal?
- Can a petitioner approach the Service Tribunal if a departmental appeal remains undecided for more than 90 days?
- Does the existence of a remedy under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Section 4(1), Service Tribunals Act 1973
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.---The matter apparently relates to terms and conditions of service it is however, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only seeking, direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's departmental appeal which was preferred in August, 1996, but remained undecided despite repeated reminders till 2003 when this petition was filed.
2. We are afraid in our view such direction cannot be issued section 4(1) read with proviso (A) to Service Tribunals Act, 1973, clearly stipulates that even appeal against an original order is maintainable provided one preferred to a departmental authority has remained undecided for a period of 90 days. Indeed the petitioner was entitled to move the Federal Service Tribunal within 120 days from the date he preferred a departmental appeal in August, 1996 an alternate remedy being available under the law which completely oust our jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, we regret we cannot entertain this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Nevertheless the petitioner may approach the competent Service Tribunal which will indeed consider the question of granting the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner. At the same time we express our strong disapproval of the delay caused by the respondents in deciding the appeal which could possibly lead to inference of mala fide in a given case. Nevertheless we express no opinion on this question.
Cited by 3 cases
- Zaheer Abbas vs Federation Of Pakistan, etc 2023 IHC 432
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs POSTMASTER GENERAL, LAHORE 2008 PLJ Lahore 668
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs POSTMASTER-GENERAL 2008 PLC (C.S.) 357