Syed Mazhar Haider Kazmi vs Secretary Agriculture, Government Of The Punjab, Lahore
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his transfer from Multan to Rahim Yar Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could directly approach the Service Tribunal against a transfer order without first exhausting departmental remedies. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that under the relevant statutory framework, a civil servant is mandatorily required to file a departmental appeal or representation before the appropriate departmental authority prior to approaching the Service Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction is contingent upon the exhaustion of these departmental remedies, specifically noting that a civil servant must await the outcome or a period of 90 days after filing such a representation before filing an appeal with the Tribunal. This decision reinforces the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as a condition precedent for judicial intervention in service matters.
- Is a civil servant required to exhaust departmental remedies before filing an appeal with the Punjab Service Tribunal?
- Can a civil servant directly challenge a transfer order before the Service Tribunal without first filing a departmental representation?
- What is the mandatory procedure for a civil servant to challenge a final order regarding terms and conditions of service?
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974
- Section 21(2), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMED, J. - Necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioner was transferred from R.Y.
Khan to Multan by the respondent vide order dated 23.5.2009 and subsequently re-transferred after two months and 24 days from Multan to R.Y. Khan vide order dated 7.8.2009. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal No. 1692/09 before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer order dated 7.8.2009 is original order which remained as original order in terms of Section 21(2) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
He further submits that there is no appeal provided against the original order of the transfer under the Act, therefore, Service Tribunal was not justified to dismiss the appeal on this ground alone.
3. Be that as it may, it is proper and appropriate to reproduce Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 and Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to the following effect:- Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act. 1974: "4. Appeal to Tribunals.- (1) Any civil servant aggrieved by-any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the communicating of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
Section.21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. 1974: 21(2). Where no provision for appeal or review exists in the rules in respect of any order, a civil servant aggrieved by any such order is made by the Governor within sixty days of the communication to him of such order, make a representation, against it to the authority next above the authority which made the order: Provided that no representation shall lie on matters relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post.
4. Mere reading the aforesaid provision of law, it is crystal clear that it is condition precedent that civil servant has to file departmental appeal/representation before the departmental authority and thereafter after awaiting 90 days, appeal is to be filed before the Service Tribunal within one month. The impugned judgment is in consonance with the mandatory provisions Of law as law laid down by this Court in Mufti Mushtaq Ahmed's case (PLD. 1981 SC 172) and Gulbat Khan's case (1992 PSC 1071).
5. For what has been discussed above, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.