Dr. AZAM SARFRAZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J .‑‑‑Petitioner seeks lave to appeal against judgment, dated 8‑12‑2003, passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the PST) in of 2002, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed.

2. The detailed facts of the case are already narrated in the impugned judgment, which are not required to be mentioned here again.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authority through order, dated 17‑5‑2001, dismissed him from service, which order was challenged by him by filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the FST). Before the FST, the Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, took an objection that although the petitioner was a Federal Government Servant, governed by the rules and regulations made under the Federal Government, but on account of an amendment in the Transfer of Population Welfare Programme (Field Activities) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, dated 25‑7‑2001, he automatically became an employee of the Provincial Welfare Department, Government of the Punjab and that the FST had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same appeal was withdrawn and thereafter, the appeal before the PST was filed. The PST, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal with the following observations:‑‑‑

"The order assailed in instant appeal is passed by Secret. Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan and as such is outside the ambit of jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal. This Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to hearing the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed without any order as to costs."

4. Mr. Muhammad Bilal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the appeal of the petitioner by the FST as well as PST declining to exercise the power vested in them, has resulted into miscarriage of Justice; that the petitioner has been knocked out by both the learned Tribunals without adjudicating the matter on merits and that the conflicting decisions of the learned Tribunals require just, fair and equitable decision purely in accordant with law laid down by this Court.

5. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal to consider, the above points, and to see whether the findings of both the learned Tribunals on the point of jurisdiction are tenable. Parties are further directed to file concise statements in support of their case. Notice to the respondents shall also be issued well in time.

6. Since, it is a service matter, the appeal shall be fixed for hearing after filing of the concise statements and due service upon the respondents within a period of six months, after obtaining necessary approval from the Honourable Chief Justice.

M.H./A‑58/S Leave granted.