M/s. State Life Insurance Corporation and another vs Sadaruddin Siddiqui
This matter arises from a petition filed by M/s. State Life Insurance Corporation against an employee challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal which assumed jurisdiction and allowed the employee's appeal against an adverse departmental order. The core legal question is whether employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation fall within the definition of civil servants so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the respondent-employee, being an employee of a statutory corporation, does not qualify as a civil servant under the law, and previous judicial precedents holding the Corporation's regulations to be statutory do not confer civil servant status upon its employees. Consequently, the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The key principle laid down is that statutory corporation employees are not civil servants and cannot approach the Service Tribunal for the redressal of their service grievances.
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation?
- Are employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation considered civil servants under the law?
- Does the statutory nature of a corporation's regulations confer civil servant status upon its employees?
- Civil Servants Act, 1973
ORDER
1. MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. --- Respondent No, 1 (respondent) is an employee of the petitioner- Corporation (employer). Aggrieved of some adverse order/action taken against him by his employer, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal which was allowed through the impugned judgment. The legal plea raised in this petition is that the learned Service Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction in the matter as the respondent is not a civil servant in terms of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Act). The respondent, who appears in person, by relying upon the judgment reported as Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Hamayun Irfan and 2 others. (2010 SCM R 1495) and an order dated 9.12.2015 of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No, 300/2010 titled "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through its Chairman, Islamabad and another v. Abdul Hakeem Bhatti and another" submits that the employees of the petitioner- Corporation are civil servants and can approach the learned Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievances. It is settled by now that only a civil servant who is aggrieved of any violation of his terms and conditions can approach the learned Service Tribunal. Admittedly the respondent does not fall within the definition of "civil servant" given in law, rather is an employee of a corporation, albeit a statutory corporation. The two judgments referred to by the respondent at the most contemplate that the regulations of State Life Insurance Corporation are statutory, but in no manner can the ratio thereof be deduced to mean that the employees have ever been considered, treated and held to be civil servants within the meaning of the Act entitling them to approach the learned Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. In light of the above, we are of the view .that the learned Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on that account. 'Resultantly, this petition is converted into an appeal, which (appeal) is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.