WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SHOKAT ALI
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 26th June 1984, which accepted the respondent's appeal against his removal from service. The respondent, a Junior Engineer and later Deputy Director in WAPDA, was removed from service on 18th August 1982 under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether the Federal Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA in respect of its employees, given the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act. The Supreme Court held that the question of the Federal Service Tribunal's jurisdiction stood already resolved by this Court in the earlier ruling of WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18). Finding the reasoning of the Service Tribunal on merits to be cogent and well-founded, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the tribunal's order.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA in respect of its employees in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Does section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 exclude the power of the Federal Service Tribunal to review removal from service?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
- Section 17(1-C), WAPDA Act 1958
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 26th June,. 1984, whereby the appeal of Shokat A.I respondent was accepted.
2. The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 19-7-1968 and posted at Tarbela Dam. Ever-since then he had been serving on different stations and was promoted to NPS 18 on 14- 2-1981. He was last posted as Deputy Director, Dams Division, WAPDA, Lahore, in June 1982. On 18-8- 1982 the respondent was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. This was challenged by the respondent by way of an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was accepted through the impugned order.
3. Leave in this case was granted to consider whether in view of the complete ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1C) of the WAPDA Act, the learned Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with the orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed or serving under it.
4. The question of jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal Stands already resolved by this Court in the case reported as WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18. As for the merits, the reasoning given by the learned Service Tribunal while accepting the appeal is cogent and well- founded and thus we see no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.