SULTAN KHAN and others vs PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES
This constitutional petition was filed by 252 employees of WAPDA at Tarbela Dam, seeking a judicial direction for the disposal of their pending departmental appeals regarding their entitlement to a 'generation allowance.' The petitioners' appeals had remained undecided for over a year, causing uncertainty and distress. The core legal question was whether public functionaries are under a mandatory obligation to decide departmental appeals within a reasonable timeframe. The Court held that public functionaries are duty-bound to adjudicate such appeals on their merits within a reasonable period, applying an independent mind and providing reasons for their decisions. The Court emphasized that indifference by authorities in addressing employee grievances is contrary to the principles of natural justice and public interest. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioners' pending appeals within one month. Upon this direction, the petitioners' counsel did not press the petition, and the matter was disposed of accordingly, reinforcing the principle that administrative delays in grievance redressal mechanisms must be eliminated to prevent unnecessary litigation and employee hardship.
- Are public functionaries legally obligated to decide departmental appeals within a reasonable timeframe?
- Does the failure of public functionaries to decide pending appeals justify judicial intervention through a constitutional petition?
- Is the requirement to provide reasons for decisions on departmental appeals a component of natural justice?
ORDER
' SYEDSAHYA ZAHID GILLANI, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that departmental appeal of petitioners dated 12-4-2007 regarding their entitlement to "generation allowance" are still pending before respondents. Disposal of these appeals is being delayed without any reason. He stated that he would not press this writ petition if a direction is issued to respondents to dispose of the aforementioned pending appeals of the petitioners, on merits, at the earliest. He placed reliance on 2007 MLD page 1898, wherein a similar direction was issued in the identical circumstances.
2. There can be no difference with the opinion that when departmental appeal is submitted, the public functionary/competent authority is duty bound to decide it within reasonable time, after application of independent mind, by giving reasons. This is a requirement of law as well as of principles of natural justice.
3. The public functionaries, by no stretch of imagination, are justified to remain indifferent on pending issues, vitally important for their employees. When they do have powers to either accept or reject an appeal, the power must be exercised and the appeals must be decided on merits, within reasonable time, so that the aggrieved employees should either get satisfied or seek further available remedy.
4. In view of rapidly increasing tendency in the offices of public functionaries to delay disposal of appeals and representations, we, over here, must express our observation that such delays prolong uncertainties, snatch peace of minds and create agonizing tensions. The public functionaries should act in a way to eliminate problems and not in a way to create further problems, as in this case, where 252 petitioners (Employee of WAPDA at Tarbela Dam, Tarbela) could not find any other legal mean, but to file this constitutional petition for mobilizing their relevant authorities, simply, to decide their appeals dated 12-4-2007 which are pending for last more than one year. Such an attitude must be given up by the public functionaries, in public interest.
5. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to issue direction to respondents for disposal of departmental appeals of petitioners dated 12-4-2007 within a shortest time, but not later than one month.
6. Resultantly, the counsel for the petitioners does not press this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Zaheer Abbas vs Federation Of Pakistan, etc 2023 IHC 432
- Mst. Saira Iram vs Chief Secretary Punjab Lahore & Another 2019 PLC (C.S.) 427, 2019 PLJ Lahore 141, 2018 LHC 3154