BASHIR AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence

' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 3-4-1990 of the Federal Service Tribunal. It is barred by 13 days. An application for condonation of the delay has been made. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant we condone the delay.

2. The appellant was a supervisor in the Pakistan Navy (Directorate of Works and Chief Engineer's Office), Islamabad. After he had served the department for about 15 years he suffered from some ailment of the eye. On the report of the Military Hospital he was struck off the strength of his department with effect from 15-4-1984. He asked for disability pension. His case was deferred for one year when he was re-examined. Even after the reexamination he was not found fit to resume duty. He claimed that he was entitled to disability pension. The Ministry of Defence forwarded his case to the Ministry of Finance for grant of disability pension. The Ministry of Finance did not agree to allow him the said pension. After his further representations failed to elicit any favourable response he filed an appeal before the Federal St vice Tribunal matting the Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence and the Directorate of Works and the Chief Engineer as parties to the appeal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that the Ministry of Finance was a necessary party to the appeal and as it had not been impleaded the constitution of the appeal suffered from a serious defect. From the judgment of the learned Tribunal the appellant has come in appeal to this Court.

3. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the view taken by the learned Tribunal that the Ministry of Finance was a necessary party as to defeat the appeal for not impleading it was in accordance with law.

4. The procedure before the learned Tribunal is regulated by the Service Tribunals (Procedure)

Rules, 1974. Rule 7 of these Rules states: "In every memorandum of appeal the competent authority against whose orders the appeal is preferred and any other party to the dispute shall be shown as respondents."

' The learned Tribunal applied this Rule in holding that the Ministry of Finance was a necessary party to the appeal. In this context it observed:-- "The matters involving fmancial implications are to be processed through the Ministry of Finance and therefore, the matter was referred to that Ministry and the claim of the appellant for the disability pension was rejected by the Ministry and unless that Ministry was made a respondent in this appeal, his claim cannot be adjudicated upon in view of Rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 providing that in every memorandum of appeal, the competent authority against whose order the appeal is preferred and any other party to the dispute shall be shown as the respondents. The appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party viz. The Ministry of Finance "

It is not disputed beforc us that as far as the appellant is concerned the administrative Ministry is the Ministry of Defence. Even though disability pension was to be granted only after obtaining sanction from the Ministry of Finance, yet the operative of der in this regard was to be issued by the Ministry of Defence. In the circumstances, it was the Ministry of Defence which was the competent authority within the meaning of Rule 7 ibid. The appeal preferred by the appellant could not be therefore dismissed on the ground that a necessary party had not been impleaded in violation of Rule 7. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. As the learned Tribunal considers that the Ministry of Finance should also be before it, let the said Ministry may also be added as a party to appeal subject to all exceptions. There shall be no order as to costs.