Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 1508

Prof. WIQAR AHMED and others vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta, and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 1508
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No.6‑Q to 9‑Q of 1989
Date1989-09-26
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash
Authored byShafiur Rahman
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners, civil servants retired under section 13(2) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, challenged their retirement before the Service Tribunal. Their initial appeals were dismissed in 1981 due to the jurisdictional bar imposed by the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others (PLD 1987 SC 304), which struck down certain constitutional bars, the petitioners attempted to revive their claims. The Service Tribunal dismissed these subsequent appeals as time-barred. The Supreme Court, in refusing leave to appeal, held that the petitioners' failure to pursue their remedies earlier rendered the matter a past and closed transaction. The Court emphasized that there was no statutory provision allowing for the revival of such concluded matters. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench relied upon by the petitioners has only prospective effect and does not apply to cases that were already concluded or decided. Consequently, no question of law of public importance arose to warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a past and closed matter be revived in the absence of express statutory provisions?
  • Does the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench in Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others have retrospective effect on concluded cases?
  • Does the dismissal of an appeal due to a constitutional bar render the matter a past and closed transaction if not pursued further?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 13(2), Balochistan Civil Servants Act 1974
  • Provisional Constitution Order 1981
  • Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
civil servicecompulsory retirementpast and closed transactionlimitationprospective effectservice tribunal jurisdictionleave to appeal

' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners were all civil servants who were retired from service under section 13(2) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act in spite of having good record of service. Their Review Petition did hot yield any result for them. Two of them moved the Service Tribunal in the matter but by decisions given in 1981, the appeals were held to be incompetent in view of the prohibition imposed by the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. They did not thereafter seek further relief till the decision of Shariat Appellate Bench in the case Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304. They again brought the matter before the Service Tribunal but the same was dismissed hopelessly time-barred.

2. In seeking leave to appeal against this decision of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that in view of the constit tional bar to their agitating before the Service Tribunal or any other forum, t the matter could not be agitated further either before the Service Tribunal or in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. It was only when this provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in a Shariat matter that an occasion arose for taking up the grievance and after filing representation with the departmental authorities, appeals were filed forthwith before the Service Tribunal.

3. We find that with the decision of the Service Tribunal in the two matters and by the act of the Petitioners in the others in not pursuing the matter, it became a past and closed matter and could not be revived unless there be express words of the statute. There being none, the petitioners cannot seek remedy in 1987 against an order passed in 1980. Besides, the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench has a prospective effect and does not deal with cases already concluded or decided.

4. No question of law of public importance, as required under Article 212(3) of the question, arises in these cases and the leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

Cited by 3 cases

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