Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 96

WAPDA vs CAPT. NAZIR HUSSAIN And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 96
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 292 of 1984
Date1985-05-06
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman
Authored byShafiur Rahman
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by WAPDA against a decision of the Service Tribunal. The respondents, after serving in the Army, were recruited as Electrical Engineers in WAPDA and granted seniority benefits under Rule 5(2)(b) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Service of Electrical Engineers Rules 1965. Subsequently, WAPDA altered its policy regarding the grant of seniority to Army officers and sought to apply this new policy retrospectively to the respondents, thereby unsettling their established seniority. The Service Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that while a competent authority possesses the power to rescind or modify its decisions, such modifications cannot be applied retrospectively to reopen past and closed transactions or unsettle matters already competently settled and implemented. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as it raised no question of law of public importance.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a competent authority retrospectively apply a modified policy decision to reopen past and closed transactions?
  • Whether seniority benefits competently granted and implemented under service rules can be subsequently withdrawn by a retrospective policy change?
  • Does a competent authority's power to rescind or modify its decisions extend to unsettling matters already settled and acted upon for years?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
  • Rule 5(2)(b), West Pakistan WAPDA Service of Electrical Engineers Rules 1965
civil serviceseniorityretrospective applicationpast and closed transactionsleave to appealservice tribunal

ORDER

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--WAPDA seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the decision of the Service Tribunal dated 11-1-1984- restoring to the respondents their position in the seniority.

2. After rendering compulsory service in the Army the appealing respondents were recruited as Electrical Engineers in WAPDA. They were allowed advance increments for rendering Army Service, in terms of rule 5(2)(b) of WAPDA Service of Electrical Engineers Rules by the Authority on 23-7-1977 which decision was expressed as hereunder and given effect to:-- "The period of satisfactory service rendered by any Engineering Officer-in Army in commissioned rank before joining Power Wing WAPDA may be counted towards seniority under the provisions of Rule 5(2) (b) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Service of Electrical Engineers Rules, 1965 read with para. 4 of Authority's decision contained in this office U.O. No. KGA-1/1/66-Secretary dated 27-6-1977.

3. Past cases may be examined in the light of the above decision and seniority fixed accordingly. In future the seniority of such persons will be fixed at the time of recruitment."

4. In another meeting on 7-8-1979 the Authority re-decided the issue as follows.

5. "It was decided that the officer would be given seniority in WAPDA in case his services. Were requisitioned by the Army."

6. This decision was sought to be applied retrospectively even to those recruited and fixed in seniority earlier to 7-8-1979. The affected individuals appealed to the Service Tribunal and succeeded.

7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an authority competent to take a decision can also revoke or modify the decision. Such a power could not be denied.

8. Under rule 5(2)(b) of the Service of Electrical Engineers Rules the Authority was competent to take such a decision in case of direct recruits. A decision competently taken, implemented and acted upon for years could certainly be rescinded or modified but not so as to reopen the past and closed cases. It could not have retrospective effect. It could not unsettle matters already competently settled.

9. The petition raises no such question of law of public importance as to require further examination.

10. Hence leave to appeal is refused. '

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.