Rao AMIR ALI KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

SHAHID KARIM, J.---- This constitutional petition seeks a direction to the respondents to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Ch. Muhammad Akram v. Registrar, Islamabad High Court and others (PLD 2016 SC 961) and consequently prays that the notification dated 01.03.2019 of the petitioner's retirement be withdrawn. As a further prayer, it has been requested that the respondents be directed to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department i.e. Punjab Police.

2. The first question that was confronted to the petitioner was regarding maintainability of this petition as it relates to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant which the petitioner admittedly was. It is also not in dispute that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 makes a reference to the terms and conditions of service of a serving as well as a retired civil servant to be dealt with by administrative tribunals set up under that Article. Section 2(a) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 defines a civil servant to mean a person who has been a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not a civil servant within the definition of section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 since he was covered under exception to section 2(b)(i) which relates to a person who is on deputation to the Federation under any provision or other authority. This is belied by not only the contents of this petition but also by the material attached with it which includes a notification dated 3.11.2003 according to which amongst others the petitioner was inducted in the National Highways and Motorways Police against the post of Senior Petrol Officer (BPS-16). Subsequently, the petitioner's services were confirmed on 10.04.2008 and the petitioner was promoted as Chief Petrol Officer (BPS-17). Thus, the case of the respondents that the petitioner was a permanent employee of NHMP at the time of his retirement on 17.4.2019 finds support from these documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner himself. Until his retirement, the petitioner did not make a request which has been made through this constitutional petition. Clearly, the petitioner is covered by the definition of a civil servant and ought to have approached the Service Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Even the questions of repatriation and absorption are questions regarding terms and conditions of service. Reliance may be placed on 2010 SCMR 378. This Court's jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution and this petition being incompetent is dismissed.

KMZ/A-37/L Petition dismissed.