MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHEEMA Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by sixteen petitioners challenging the order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals against their threatened reversion from the acting charge of Sub Divisional Officers or Assistant Engineers to their substantive posts of Overseers or Sub-Engineers. The petitioners were initially promoted on an acting charge basis as a stopgap arrangement under section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, with a liability to termination without notice. The core legal question concerned the competency of the service appeals against threatened reversion and stopgap arrangements. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were not fit for leave to appeal because the petitioners had approached the Service Tribunal without complying with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, rendering their appeal incompetent under section 4(a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. The key principle laid down is that statutory preconditions for approaching a service tribunal, including departmental remedies, must be strictly fulfilled, and acting charge stopgap promotions do not confer a vested right against reversion.
- Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal is competent without complying with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Do civil servants holding acting charge appointments on a stopgap basis acquire a vested right against reversion?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of an appeal by the Service Tribunal where statutory departmental remedies were bypassed?
- 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 tion 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.
5. Leave refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Mrs. MARIAM vs NAEEM AHMED 2001 SCMR 1676