ABDUL HAMEED and others vs SPECIAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals in limine. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal acted arbitrarily and failed to exercise its jurisdiction by dismissing the appeals without calling for comments from the concerned department, failing to consider specific grounds raised in the memo of appeal, and ignoring binding precedents. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was a non-speaking, arbitrary decision that failed to address material points and violated the principle of judicial hierarchy. The Court emphasized that judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts and tribunals under the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the cases for a fresh decision on merits, directing the Tribunal to consider all grounds raised by the petitioners and the relevant legal provisions, specifically regarding service conditions under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The decision reinforces the necessity for tribunals to provide reasoned orders and adhere to binding precedents.
- Is a judgment of the Supreme Court binding on all courts and tribunals in Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution?
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine without considering the specific grounds raised in the memo of appeal?
- Does the acceptance of terms and conditions in an appointment letter preclude a civil servant from seeking the benefits of Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Section 16, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Article 189, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against order dated 10-7-2006 of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Appeals Nos.1644 to 1654 of 2006 dismissing the aforesaid appeals in limine. As common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, the same are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the petitioners has attacked the judgment and advanced the following grounds in support of the petitioners--
(i) that the correct decision of the appeals filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal could only have been arrived at after calling for the comments from the concerned department;
(ii) that the Tribunal had decided the appeals in a hasty, arbitrary and fanciful manner without taking into consideration the grounds mentioned under the heading "Grounds" in the memo of appeal especially grounds at C, D and E and discussing the merits of the appeals;
(iii) that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the petitioners could not be forced tG accept service conditions contrary to the. Provisions of section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"); and
(iv) that mere acceptance by a civil servant of certain terms and conditions mentioned'in the appointment letter would not deprive him from seeking benefit of section 16 of the Act.
3. From a bare perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal it transpires that the Tribunal appeared to be in great haste in disposing of the appeals filed by the petitioners and did not advert to very material points/questions which were required to be considered in deciding the appeals justly and fairly. It is absolutely clear that the Tribunal did not bother to look into the judgment and orders of this Court and the Punjab Service Tribunal on the issues involved in the appeals of the petitioners which is violative of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which requires that a judgment of this Court is binding on all the Courts and Tribunals in Pakistan.
4. Notice was given to Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Additional Advocate-General and he was asked to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents and to assist the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General after going through the file and the relevant law could not controvert the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Tribunal was an arbitrary and the impugned order nonspeaking order and could not be sustained.
5. In view of above factual position, it will be appropriate that the appeals of the respondents be re- heard by the Tribunal. Accordingly these petitions are converted into appeals and are allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The cases are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal specials.
Grounds C, D and E and arguments of the learned counsel which may be advanced before the Tribunal on behalf of the parties. No order as to costs.
Cited by 1 case
- JUSTICE KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER and others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another 2010 PLD Supreme Court 483