Pakistan Case LawALI MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court arising from the compulsory retirement of an employee working in the Traffic Accounts Branch of the N.W. Railway. The petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement, ordered by the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, through a civil suit, which was dismissed as barred under Section 10 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1959. His subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the retirement order was issued without competent authority, and further contended that he could not be retired for inefficiency because rule 2(c) of the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules, 1959 had been omitted. The Supreme Court declined permission to raise the issue of competent authority for the first time before it. Applying its precedent, the Court held that Article 6 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958 operated as a super-constitutional provision with overriding effect over inconsistent rules, independently permitting compulsory retirement for inefficiency prior to 1 July 1959. The petition was dismissed.
- Can a petitioner raise a challenge regarding the competence of the authority passing an order for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does the omission of rule 2(c) of the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules, 1959 preclude compulsory retirement on grounds of inefficiency where Article 6 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958 applies?
- Did Article 6 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958 have overriding effect over subordinate rules to allow compulsory retirement on the ground of inefficiency before 1 July 1959?
ORDER
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑ The petitioner at the time of his compulsory retirement was working in the Traffic Accounts Branch of the N. W. Railway. On the 27th June 1969, by an order of the Financial Adviser and the Chief Accounts Officer P. W. Railway, Lahore, he was retired compulsorily from service with effect from the 30th June 1959 (A. N.). There was no appeal from this order but the petitioner filed a suit which was dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred under section 10 of Ordinance No. 2 of 195 ). Petitioner's appeal from this order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, and his second appeal before the High Court was also dismissed. '
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of retirement was not passed by the competent authority. This point was never raised in any Court. We, therefore, cannot permit him to raise it for the first time before us.
It has next been contended that the petitioner could not be retired on the ground of inefficiency or unsatisfactory service inasmuch as rule 2(c) of the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules, 1959, was omitted by an amendment on the 25th February 1959. The said rule permitted retirement on the ground of inefficiency. In support of this contention the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied on the case of Government of East Pakistan v. Murzuqullah (P L D 1969 S C 1). We have perused this decision and it appears to us that this Court considered a similar contention and rejected it. In the case under report after examining clauses 3 and 4 which were added to Article 6 of Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1951 oz: the 9th March 1959, and clause 5, which was amended on the 23rd April 1959, it has been. observed as follows : ‑‑
"It will be seen that sub‑clause (b) by reference to sub‑clause (a) includes 'inefficiency' as a ground for the compulsory retirement of a person in the service of Pakistan, if the order of his retirement is made before the 1 st of July 1959. This provision which is part of a super‑constitutional law namely, the Laws(Continuance in Force) Order of 1959, is independent of any other law and has an overriding effect, not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith or having the contrary purpose, in any other law, rule or instrument having the force of law."
There is no substance in this petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Waheeduddin Ahmad674 judgments
- Salahuddin Ahmed947 judgments