Prof. MUHAMMAD WALT KHAN- vs HAMDARD UNIVERSITY and otherss
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment concerning the jurisdiction of the service tribunal over university employees. The core legal question is whether an employee of a private university, such as Hamdard University, qualifies as a 'civil servant' under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, so as to approach the service tribunal for service grievances. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, being an employee of a private university, does not fall within the definition of a civil servant and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the service tribunal. The Court reasoned that university employees are governed by university rules rather than government control or statutory provisions applicable to civil servants. The key principle laid down is that employees of universities are not civil servants for the purposes of service tribunals unless they satisfy the statutory criteria of government appointment, holding office during government pleasure, and having terms and conditions regulated by civil servant laws.
- Whether an employee of a private university can be considered a civil servant under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Do university employees have the right to approach the service tribunal for the redress of their service grievances?
- Does an employee of the University of Balochistan hold office during the pleasure of the Government of Balochistan?
- Section 4, Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25-7-2005. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "For the aforesaid reasons and the case-law, we are of the firm view that the intention of the Legislature as it appears from the whole scheme of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is clear that only the employees of the Corporation/institution which are being controlled by the Government or the Government has any interests/share in them, have been provided forum to approach this Tribunal for redress of the grievances touching the terms and conditions of their service and have been declared as civil servants only for the purpose of filing appeal before this Tribunal."
2. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner, being in the employment of the Hamdard University, is civil servant for the purposes of Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973 as according to its provisions an employee of an organization, which falls within the definition of corporation, shall be deemed to be a civil servant.
3. We are not, inclined to agree with him because firstly the Hamdard University is a private university and by no stretch of imagination it can be considered a corporation. In an identical case of University of Balochistan through Registrar v. Saeed Muhammad Khan and others 1986 SCM R 1063 this Court had delivered the status of the employees of universities. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "The respondent No,1 invoked the procedure prescribed in section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 for the redress of his service grievance pertaining to seniority as Superintendent.
Such a procedure is available to a civil servant as defined in the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. The definition provided is a person who is a "member of civil service of the Province of Balochistan or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province". The further provisions in the Act are that such appointments "shall be made in the prescribed manner by the Government of Balochistan or by person authorized by it in that behalf" and that every such civil servant" shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government of Balochistan" and that the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant shall be as provided in this Act and the rules". None of these conditions were satisfied in the case of the respondent No,1 as he was not appointed by the Government of Balochistan or its delegate. He did not hold the office at the pleasure of the Government of Balochistan and his terms and conditions of service were not regulated by the Civil Servant Act and the rules framed 'thereunder. He was an employee of the University. His terms and conditions of service were regulated by the rules framed by the University. The Vice-Chancellor was his Appointing Authority. None of these authorities act as delegate of the Balochistan Government while employing or regulating the terms and conditions of the respondent. He cannot, therefore, be held to be a civil servant for the purposes of Civil Servants Act and for that reason he was not entitled to seek redress from the Tribunal under section 4 of the Tribunal Act.
4. In view of above dictum laid down by the Court, there is hardly a difficulty to come to the conclusion that as far as the employees of the University are concerned, they do not fall within the definition of Civil Servant. Therefore, Tribunal had rightly declined to grant relief to the petitioner.
5. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petitions are dismissed and leave declined.