ABDUL BARI KHADIM vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN
This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by a retired civil servant seeking a direction to the competent authority to decide his pending departmental appeal regarding salary, perks, and reimbursements, thereby enabling him to approach The Balochistan Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition could be entertained to direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal when the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal had ostensibly lapsed. The Court held that since the only effective relief sought was a direction for the disposal of the pending departmental appeal, it was unnecessary to delve into the merits or determine the limitation question regarding the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the competent authority to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within one month. The key principle laid down is that a High Court may issue a direction to a departmental authority to decide a pending departmental appeal without entering into the merits or the question of limitation concerning subsequent remedies before a service tribunal.
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to seek a direction for the decision of a pending departmental appeal?
- Can a High Court direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal without resolving the question of limitation for filing a service appeal?
- Does the failure to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within the stipulated period bar a constitutional direction for the disposal of a departmental representation?
- Section 4, The Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974
' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.--- Through this instant petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate direction to the Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan, or in alternate a direction to the competent authority to decide the appeal preferred by him to enable him to approach The Balochistan Service Tribunal by filing a Service Appeal for recovery of his salary, other perks and reimbursements.
2. His (petitioner's) case was with the facts that he was an employee of the Education Department since 1986, and retired from the services on superannuation on 19th October, 2012. While during the period he was also appointed as Project Director in Balochistan Middle Level Education Project.
Further, he (petitioner) claimed himself to be entitled for the amount spent on different heads.
Relief was claimed in the terms as narrated in para No.1 of the order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that due to some reasons the petitioner was refrained from filing of appeal before the Service Tribunal, while the departmental appeal was filed within the stipulated period, which was still pending, thus needs a decision. The learned counsel addressed maintainability of the instant petition while contending that no relief pertaining to terms and conditions of service was prayed; rather only issuance a direction for decision of his appeal before the departmental authority would redress his grievance. It was asserted that a constitutional petition could be filed for an order of the nature, to provide a space to a retired civil servant for redress of his grievance. He referred to the judgment in case "Haji Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh, reported in 1982 SCM R 582" to address the point of limitation for filing of a service appeal before a Service Tribunal.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General (A.A.-G.) was of the view that the stipulated period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal had already been lapsed, therefore, the relief claimed could not be allowed.
5. The petition though filed with the facts of service record of the petitioner, and on his retirement, the process of payment of his salaries, and other amount was delayed, and despite filing of appeal matter was not finalized. The fact further apparent that on filing of the departmental appeal in 2012 the petitioner opted not to file appeal before the Service Tribunal within the stipulated period of 120 days as required by section 4 The Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974 for the reasons known to him. The instant petition was filed only for the purpose to obtain an order from this court with a direction to the competent authority in his case to decide the appeal pending since 29th September, 2012. Though the learned Assistant Advocate-General objected the relief while contending that the petitioner had lost his right for filing appeal before the Service Tribunal for lapse of time which makes his claim time-barred.
6. The point of limitation though agitated by both the counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Advocate-General, but as the only effective order prayed in the petition pertains to issuance of a direction to the concerned authority for making a decision on appeal pending before it, thus there is no need to go into merit of the case and record findings on maintainability of the petition with reference to the provisions containing the stipulated period for filing of a appeal before the Service Tribunal. This issue left for decision of the Service Tribunal, the relevant forum.
' In view of what has been narrated in the preceding paras the petition is allowed. The competent authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner, pending before the authority, within a period of one month positively.
' The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
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