Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 322

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others vs ABDUL SATTAR NADEEM HASHMI and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 322
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil. Petitions Nos. 765 and 781 of 1982
Date1988-08-03
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman arid Ali Hussain Qazilbash
Authored byShafiur Rahman Arid Ali Hussain Qazilbash
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter involves cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which arose from an appeal filed by a school employee, Abdul Sattar Nadeem Hashmi, challenging his service status and the nationalization of his institution. The petitioner sought a declaration regarding the status of the 'Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur' following its nationalization as a primary school, and requested to be recognized as a High School Headmaster with associated seniority and pay scale benefits. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the status of the school or grant declarations regarding the upgradation of the institution. However, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the petitioner's monthly emoluments effective from the date of nationalization. Both the Government of Punjab and the employee challenged the Tribunal's order, citing the precedent of Province of Punjab v. Bashir Ahmad Bukhari. The Supreme Court, finding that a substantial question of law of public importance was involved, granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the propriety of the Tribunal's order.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine the status of an educational institution or grant declarations regarding its upgradation?
  • Can a Service Tribunal fix the pay and emoluments of a civil servant when it has otherwise determined it lacks jurisdiction over the core subject matter of the appeal?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974
service tribunal jurisdictionnationalization of schoolsleave to appealservice senioritypublic importanceeducational institution status

ORDER

' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--These two civil petitions bearing -No, 765 of 1982 (filed by the Government of the Punjab) and 781 of 1982 (filed by Abdus Sattar Nadeem Hashmi) are directed against the same judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 28-6-1982, delivered in the appeal filed by Abdus Sattar Nadeem Hashmi.

2. Abdus Sattar Nadeem Hashmi had filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, praying that the order dated 27-9-1972, whereby the Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur. Was nationalised as a Primary School, be declared wrong and also the orders/notifications which have been issued by the respondents in pursuance of Rules of 1974 or even earlier treating/showing Abdus Sattar Nadeem Hashmi as a Primary School teacher or even as Senior English Teacher be set aside and that he be declared to be the Headmaster of a High School from 1-10-1972 with date of continuous appointment from 6-9-1963 with full benefit of pay scale and seniority among Headmasters. In the alternative it was prayed that if the Rules of 1974 are not declared to be void, then the Department concerned be directed to appoint him as Senior English Teacher with effect from 1-10-1974. With the benefit of seniority as provided for in the Rules and also be given a due place in the seniority list.

3. The matter was considered by the learned Tribunal which after hearing the parties held that it has no jurisdiction to determine the status of the school or to grant declaration regarding upgradation of the institution, but while doing so fixed the pay of Abdus Sattar Nadeem Hashmi at Rs, 495 (total emoluments) per month with effect from the date of nationalisation of the Madrasa.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the parties, relying on Province of Punjab v. Bashir Ahmad Bukhari PLD 1982 SC 27, have questioned the propriety of the order of the Tribunal.

Since a substantial question of law of public importance is involved, we grant leave in both .The petitions.

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