ABDUL RAHMAN QURESHI vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's second review application regarding his service benefits and pension. The petitioner had initially challenged the denial of an advance increment upon receiving a selection grade. While the Tribunal rejected the claim for the increment, it protected the payments already received due to departmental error. Subsequently, the petitioner filed multiple review applications. The Tribunal treated these as miscellaneous petitions, eventually noting that the judgment had been implemented in toto and the petitioner's grievances redressed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could maintain a second review application before the Tribunal and whether a question of law of public importance existed to warrant Supreme Court intervention. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal lacked the power of review, noting that the petitioner had already conceded that the original judgment was fully implemented. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that no question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was established.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the inherent power of review regarding its own decisions?
- What constitutes a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a petitioner maintain a petition for leave to appeal after conceding before the Tribunal that the judgment in question has been fully implemented?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- Petitioner's Appeal No,540(L)CS of 2000 was decided by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on 3-12-2003. His claim that he should have been allowed one increment on getting selection grade and for revision of his pension accordingly was rejected. However, the amount already paid to him was protected by the Tribunal because the payment so made was due to the error of the respondent-department. In view thereof, the appeal was partly accepted in the following manner:- "The result is that the appeal is accepted partly. The claim of the appellant for restoration of his pay slip in which he had been allowed advance increment is rejected. His second prayer that no recovery should be effected from him is allowed. This order would be effective only if payments have already been received by the appellant. The appellant shall be paid monthly pension on the basis of PPO dated 23-8-1999."
' In the year 2004, the petitioner filed a review application to get rectification of the order regarding PPO dated 23-8-1999. The Tribunal, accommodating the petitioner, treated the said review application as M. P. No,725 of 2004 and decided the same as under:-- "The respondents have submitted a bill of commutation of pension arrears and also approval for payment of commutation and gratuity regarding the grievance in the cause and also a letter dated 2-6-2006 stating that the petition has borne fruit and the judgment stands implemented in toto. The learned counsel for the appellant has no further cause of grievance. Petition disposed of having borne fruit."
' The petitioner moved yet another review application, which again was treated as M. P. No,379 of 2008. The Tribunal disposed of the said M.P. By holding that the judgment of the Tribunal had already been implemented. This order was passed on 29-1-2010 and .Forms the subject matter of the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. The petitioner is present in person. The learned Deputy Attorney-General, in response to the notice is also present and has assisted the Court. The learned DAG took us through the record to show that the judgment of the Tribunal dated 3-12-2003 had been duly implemented and had attained finality. Further assured that petitioner's case had been duly considered by the department sympathetically and rectification, as sought, was made. In answer, the petitioner read out order dated 3-12-2003 and sought further change therein.
3. We are afraid, the Tribunal had no power of review. The petitioner had filed two review applications, on which the Tribunal accommodated him. The petitioner conceded that the judgment of the Tribunal dated 3-12-2003 had been duly implemented in toto and as such his grievance stood redressed. The petitioner was unable to show to us that his second review petition before the Tribunal was maintainable or that he had any grievance to agitate before this Court, after he had conceded in the Tribunal that the order stood implemented and his grievance fully redressed. We also find that no question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises in this petition.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the present CPLA is dismissed and leave to appeal in declined.