Pakistan Case Law
2011 SCMR 592

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 SCMR 592
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 534-K of 2010
Date2010-12-27
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. and Jawwad S. Khawaja
Authored byIftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerned a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition regarding the non-payment of salary, a matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of service. The petitioner contended that such issues fall under the complete ouster of jurisdiction contemplated by Article 212 of the Constitution, requiring recourse to a Tribunal. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's jurisdiction in such cases appeared prima facie barred. However, considering that the High Court's order had already been implemented and salaries were being regularly paid, the Court declined to pass an adverse order to prevent hardship to the respondents. The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined, with an observation that High Courts should, in future, determine the applicability of Article 212 before entertaining similar writ petitions concerning employees' terms and conditions.

Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199 of the Constitution
  • Article 212 of the Constitution
JurisdictionHigh CourtConstitutional petitionTerms and conditions of serviceOuster of jurisdictionSalaryWrit petitionService Tribunal

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Mr. Abdul. Fattah Malik, learned Additional Advocate- General, Sindh states that grievance of the petitioner only relates to the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the complete ouster contemplated under Article 212 of the Constitution. According to him non-payment of salary is one of the Terms and Conditions of service therefore, respondents could have availed their remedy before the Tribunal and the High Court may have not entertained the writ petition. However, he stated that order of the High Court has been implemented and salaries of respondents are being paid to them regularly.

2. As far as, objection raised by learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh with regard to jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the case under Article 199 of the Constitution pertaining to the Terms and Conditions is concerned, it seems to be valid prima facie, but in the instant case order has been implemented and it would create hardship for the respondents if any adverse order against them is passed. However, it is observed that in future the High Court may determine before entertaining such writ petitions as to whether the jurisdiction to decide such cases is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, particularly when the matter pertains to Terms and Conditions of the employees.

' Thus with the above observations petition stands dismissed. Leave declined.

Cited by 42 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.