Dr. ZULFIQAR AHMED MALIK vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding a request to change his recorded date of birth from 01.06.1959 to 08.12.1960. The petitioner argued that Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, could not be applied retrospectively as it was inserted on 31.07.2000. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had extensively examined the matter and supporting case law. The Court held that the issue of retrospectivity was not relevant because the rule was enacted while the petitioner was in service, and a civil servant cannot claim a vested right in rules that are subject to government alteration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the vires of Rule 12-A. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a civil servant claim a vested right in service rules that are subject to government alteration?
- Does the retrospective application of a service rule arise if the rule was enacted while the civil servant was still in service?
- Is a challenge to the vires of a rule a prerequisite for claiming the benefit of its non-application?
- Rule 12-A, Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. GULZAR AHMED, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner . The petitioner's case before the Federal Service Tribunal was that of a change of his date of birth from 01.06.1959 to 8.12.1960. The Tribunal after hearing the petitioner has passed the impugned judgment dated 23.05.2019, by which the Service Appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel has contended that Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, was inserted in the Rules on 31.07.2000 and therefore, could not have retrospective effect and in this respect has relied upon the case of Water and Power Development Authority v.
2. Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi and another (1987 SCMR 359). The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has dealt with the matter quite extensively with all supporting case law and then has come to the conclusion by which the service appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The question of application of retrospectivity to Rule 12(2) is not germane to the case in hand for that such rule was made when the petitioner was in service and the petitioner cannot claim any vested right in rules which are alterable by the government, against which there is no embargo.
3. The petitioner himself has not challenged the vires of Rule 12A and thus also he cannot be given benefit of his claim. No substantial question of law of public importance in terms of 212(3) of the Constitution is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.