MUHAMMAD SAADULLAH KHAN vs POSTMASTER GENERAL AND Other
The petitioner, a civil servant in the Postal Department, sought special leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal regarding his compulsory retirement. The petitioner was retired under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, upon completing 25 years of service qualifying for pension. The Service Tribunal had declined jurisdiction, holding it could not adjudicate the validity of an order retiring a civil servant in the public interest. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including the legality of retirement orders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions raised regarding the scope and nature of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as well as the petitioner's claim of being denied a hearing and the legality of a second review of his service record, required further consideration. The Court ordered the appeal to be heard on the existing record, granting parties liberty to file additional documents.
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of an order retiring a civil servant in the public interest?
- Does the retirement of a civil servant constitute a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Can a civil servant be subjected to a second review of their service record for the purpose of compulsory retirement after having already completed the qualifying period of service?
- Section 13(ii), Civil Servants Act 1973
ORDER
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 11th of October, 1980, by which his Appeal No. 37 (K) of 1980 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was inducted in the service of the Postal Department as a clerk on 24th of November, 1952, and by order dated 8th of April 1980, be was retired from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension under section 13 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 by the Postmaster-General, Southern Circle, Karachi. He sent a written representa--tion to the Director- General, Post Offices, on 26th of April, 1980, which was treated as an appeal and rejected by order dated 28th of June, J980. He next filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad but did not succeed as it held that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter and question of the validity of the order of the competent authority retiring a Civil Servant in the public interest under section 13 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
3. The learned counsel challenges this statement of law on the premise that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the questions relating to the terms and conditions of a Civil Servant, and as the retirement of the petitioner from service relates to a term of his service, it should have examined the legality of his retirement.' In support of this contention he relies on M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (PLD 1980 SC 22) and Mian Amanul Mulk v. N.-W. F. P.
Through Chief Secretary (PLD 1981 Posh, 1).
4. The learned counsel further. Contends that the petitioner was not heard by the Director-General, Post Offices, while dismissing his appeal and accordingly, he was denied an opportunity to plead that his retirement was illegal as he had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension on 23rd of November, 1977, when he was not retired but allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation, and that there could not be a second review of his service record. The Tribunal again, by refusing to exercise A jurisdiction, has denied to him this opportunity.
5. The contention raised relates to the nature and the scope of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal which need consideration in the light of the other grounds raised in the petition.
Accordingly, leave to appealgranted to the petitioner. The appeal arising out of this petition should b heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any, at an early date.