MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHEEMA AND Others vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
The petitioners, sixteen individuals holding the posts of Overseers or Sub-Engineers, sought leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed their appeals regarding their threatened reversion from the acting charge of Sub-Divisional Officers or Assistant Engineers back to their original posts. The petitioners had been promoted to these acting charges on a stopgap basis, subject to termination without notice under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' appeals before the Service Tribunal were competent given the procedural requirements of the governing legislation. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were not fit for leave to appeal because the petitioners had failed to comply with the mandatory departmental representation requirements under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, rendering their appeals before the Service Tribunal incompetent under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's direction for the petitioners to approach the Government directly for the redressal of their grievances, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting departmental remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal competent if the petitioner has not complied with the departmental representation requirements under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Can a civil servant claim a right to regular promotion when appointed to an acting charge on a stopgap basis?
- Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render an appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 11, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Section 21, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Section 4(a), Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
ORDER
1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J. -The petitioners who are sixteen in number by separate petitions seek leave to appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitu--petition against the order dated 15-I L-1982 whereby the Service Tribunal dismiss--ed their appeals against their threatened reversion from the post of Sub --Divisional Officers or Assistant Engineers to that of Overseers or of Sub-- Engineer.
2. The petitioners were holding posts of Overseers or Sub-Engineers and had cleared their departmental promotion examination when under an authorization by the Secretary -Irrigation and Power, the Chief Engineer promoted them on different dates to the acting charge of Sub- Divisions on their own pay of Sub-Engineers with a liability to termination without notice in accordance with section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 without conferring any right to claim promotion on regular basis. In 1982 in the wake of direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers against the quota reserved for them they were threatened with reversion and hastened to appeal to the Service Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal dismissed their appeal holding that their promotion/ appointment-was "as a stopgap arrangement with clear condition that their services would be terminated as S. D. Os. Whenever Government think proper under section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 without any notice".
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we find that these are not fit cases for leave to appeal for the petitioners had approached the Service Tribunal without complying with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act and their appeal was not competent under section 4 (a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. The Service Tribunal has by para.11 of its order referred the petitioners to Government in the matter of their grievance. The petitioners should more appropriately avail of that 'opportunity. Leave to appeal is refused.