ANWAR BEG Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.
This matter concerns appeals filed by S.E.T. (Science) teachers who were initially appointed on fixed pay in 1987 and subsequently sought both graded pay and regularization of their service following the upgrading of their posts to B-16. While the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal granted the appellants graded pay from the date they acquired the requisite educational qualifications, it failed to adjudicate upon their claim for regularization under Section 3 of the N.W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Service) Act, 1988. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in omitting to decide the issue of regularization. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had not adverted to the statutory provisions regarding regularization. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases to the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal with a specific direction to decide the entitlement of the appellants to be regularized in terms of the aforementioned Act. The principle laid down is that a Service Tribunal must adjudicate upon all grievances raised by an appellant, particularly those grounded in specific statutory provisions.
- Is a Service Tribunal required to adjudicate upon all claims raised by an appellant, including claims for regularization under the N.W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularisation of Service) Act, 1988?
- Can a case be remanded to a Service Tribunal if it fails to address a specific statutory claim regarding the regularization of a civil servant?
- Section 3, N.W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularisation of Service) Act, 1988
1. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--- By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above three appeals as they involve common question of law.
2. The brief facts are that the appellants were appointed as S.E.T. (Science) in B-15 on fixed pay on different dates in the year 1987. After joining service they improved their educational qualification and also earned experience of teaching for more than five years as S.E.T. (Science). Subsequently, the post of S.E.T. (Science) was upgraded to B-16 in 1991 and pay scale of the appellants was revised. The appellant submitted a departmental appeal praying for grant of graded pay from the dates they acquired requisite qualification as well as for regularisation of their appointments as S.E.T. (Science). After waiting for 90 days, they filed appeals before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar. The same were allowed in the following terms:--
3. "In this case the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the authorities of the superior Court and also on the judgments of this Tribunal where presumptive pay in the time scale has been allowed to those incumbents who are otherwise qualified to be appointed to the post, therefore, by partially accepting the appeal, the appellant is allowed only graded pay from the date he acquired the requisite qualification i.e. B.Ed. for the post of S.E.T., with arrears if any from that date. The appeal is partially accepted. This order shall also dispose of the following connected appeals in the same terms from the date they acquired the prescribed qualification, because in all the appeals similar questions of law and facts are involved:
(1) Appeal No. 51 of 1995 Najab Khan v. Secretary, Education, N.-W. F. P. etc.
(2) Appeal No. 454 of 1994 Ali Haider v. Secretary, Education etc.
(3) Appeal No. 455 of 1994 Shah Jehan v. Secretary, Education etc.
(4) Appeal No. 456 of 1994 Mahboob Shah v. Secretary, Education etc.
(5) Appeal No. 457 of 1994 Anwar Beg v. Secretary, Education etc.
(6) Appeal No. 459 of 1994 Farooq Ahmad v. Secretary, Education etc.
(7) Appeal No. 460 of 1994 Muhammad Ayub v. Secretary, Education etc.
4. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record."
5. The appellants were aggrieved by the factum the Service Tribunal has not dilated upon their second grievance, i.e. regularisation of their service in terms of section 3 of the N.W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularisation of Service) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They, therefore, filed petitions for leave to appeal which were granted to consider the above question.
6. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Shahzad Akbar, learned Deputy Attorney-General. It seems that the Service Tribunal has not adverted to section 3 of the Act. Learned Deputy Attorney-General suggests that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication upon the above issue. We are also inclined to remand the cases' to the Tribunal.
7. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the cases are remanded to the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal to decide as to whether the appellants are entitled to be regularised in terms of section 3 of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.
8. A.A./A-98/S Cases remanded.