FALAK SHER KHAN Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding a service seniority dispute. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction and proper scope of proceedings before the Punjab Service Tribunal upon remand by the Supreme Court, specifically whether the Tribunal could direct the Provincial Government to decide a representation rather than inquiring into the maintainability and fulfillment of statutory preconditions of the appeal. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the Tribunal erred by directing the Provincial Government to decide the matter, clarifying that the Tribunal must itself determine the maintainability of the appeal based on the expiration of the statutory ninety-day period following departmental representation. The key principle laid down is that service tribunals must strictly adhere to the scope of remand orders and independently resolve jurisdictional prerequisites concerning departmental remedies under the relevant service laws rather than remitting matters back to the executive authorities.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal can direct the Provincial Government to decide a pending departmental representation instead of determining the maintainability of the service appeal itself?
- What is the effect of the expiration of the ninety-day period after moving a departmental representation under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act?
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunal Act
1. MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal is sought against o an order dated 23‑11‑1993 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter mentioned as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 552/594/84.
2. Said appeal was filed by respondent No. 2 Muhammad Anwar Hakim before the Tribunal claiming seniority, inter alia, over petitioners Falak Sher, Abbul Salam and Faqir Muhammad. Said service appeal was accepted by the Tribunal on 19‑5‑1986. Acceptance of said appeal was challenged in this Court Civil Petition No. 526 of 1986 which was heard with Civil Appeals Nos. 80 and 81 of 1987. All these appeals were decided on 14‑5‑1989 and the case of respondent No. 2 was remanded to the Tribunal to ascertain whether respondent No. 2 had competently filed the appeal before the Tribunal. After remand the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of respondent No. 2 after taking view that said appeal was not maintainable. Respondent No.2 took the matter to this Court where it was heard with Civil Petition No. 671‑L/90 on 24‑11 1990. Under a judgment dated 24‑11‑1990 this Court observed that the Tribunal had not made the necessary inquiries in terms of the earlier order of remand. This Court therefore directed the Tribunal to summon record of the department and proceed to decide appeal in the light of the observations made in the earlier order of remand passed by this Court.
3. In pursuance of the order of remand, the Tribunal passed an order dated 23‑11‑1993 impressing upon the Secretary Agricultural, Government of Punjab, to place case of respondent No. 2 before the Governor within a month for disposal. While ordering so, the Tribunal observed that the objection raised by the counsel for respondent No. 1 will not lose its force and will be considered when ultimately the case comes to final arguments. Said Order is challenged before this Court in this petition.
4. Dr. Khalid Ranjah, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal had travelled beyond its, jurisdiction by directing the Provincial Government to decide the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 and that the only action to be taken by the Tribunal was to summon the record of the department and to see if respondent No. 2 had complied with the provisions contained in provision (a) below section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act which read as below:‑
5. "(a) Where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or any rules against any such order no appeal shall be to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved Civil Servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to a departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred."
6. There appears to be some force in the contention raised. Mr. Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, learned counsel for the caveator argued that the impugned order had not prejudiced the case of the petitioners."
7. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into appeal and direct the Tribunal not to wait for decision of the Provincial Government‑ on the representation/appeal made by respondent No. 2 and to take the appeal to have been filed by respondent No. 2 after ninety days of moving the representation/appeal to the Provincial Government/Governor unless an order is passed before expire of said period of 90 days. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
8. A.A./F‑343/S Case remanded.