CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus ARIF HUSSAIN

ORDER

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J .---Listed petitions have been filed against the judgment of Federal ' Service Tribunal, dated 3-6-2006.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the cases are that respondents were appointed in BPS-1 in the Electric Traction Department, Pakistan Railways, Khanewal, during the period from 1983 to 1999 and were assigned the duty of filling water in the coaches of trains at Khanewal Junction. They have been continuously performing this duty as temporary labour on yearly basis. The posts against which they were appointed, were certainly permanent as the railway department, as per narration of facts in the impugned judgment, had admitted that posts occupied by them were permanent. The respondents having rendered continuous service as railway employees for a considerable period, approached the Federal Service Tribunal for regularization of their service and Tribunal having taken into consideration the Policy Letter No.831-E/132-XIV (Policy), dated 21-4-1985, allowed their appeals and while placing reliance on Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100, having given them the relief sought by them in the appeals, directed for their regularization.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents were not as such civil servants and having not acquired the status of civil servant in terms of section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, would have no right to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, therefore, their appeals were bound to be rejected in view of the judgment of this Court passed Civil Appeals Nos.792 to 816 of 2005. We are afraid, the employees of railways department are governed by their own statutory rules, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel may not be attracted to exclude them from the definition of civil servant. Besides, it is evident from the record that respondents were working against the permanent posts and according to policy of railways department, they were entitled to claim regularization, therefore, the Service Tribunal having taken into consideration this aspect of the cases, as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan (ibid), had rightly allowed the appeals filed by them and impugned judgment being unexceptionable, would admit no interference. These petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.

H.B.T./C-23/SC Petitions dismissed.