KHURSHID AHMED GOREJA vs THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others
The petitioner, a former employee of the Pakistan Council of Appropriate Technology (PCAT), challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his appeal against a demotion order for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner retained the status of a 'civil servant' under the relevant service laws, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, despite having previously retired from his original position in the Telephone and Telegraph Department. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had severed his ties with the civil service upon his retirement in 1982, after which he was permanently absorbed into the ATDO (later PCAT). Consequently, he did not hold the status of a civil servant at the time of the impugned disciplinary order. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The key principle laid down is that an individual who has retired from the civil service and accepted pensionary benefits, subsequently serving in a statutory body, does not retain the status of a civil servant for the purposes of Service Tribunal jurisdiction.
- Does an employee who retires from the civil service and accepts pensionary benefits retain the status of a civil servant while employed by a statutory body?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by an employee who is not a civil servant?
- Does permanent absorption into a statutory body after retirement from the civil service constitute a continuation of civil service status?
- Societies Registration Act, 1860
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Khurshid Ahmed Goreja, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 29-8-1992 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby his appeal against the order dated 21-1-1991 passed by the Chairman, Pakistan Council of Appropriate Technology, reinstating him in service but in BPS-18, was dismissed solely on the ground that he was not a civil servant at the time of the passing of the impugned order and, in consequence, the appeal before the Service Tribunal was not competent and without jurisdiction.
2. ' The facts of the case, more or less undisputed, are that the petitioner was initially appointed in BPS-11 as Office Superintendent in Telephone and Telegraph Department, was selected as Superintendent BPS-16 by the Appropriate Technology Development Organisation, Islamabad (hereinafter to be referred as ATDO) and took over on 31-12-1976. The ATDO was then functioning as a cell under the Planning and Development Division and it was subsequently registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and later on placed under the administrative control of Ministry of Science and Technology in 1978. The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Secretary (B-17) with effect from 2-5-1978, as a Deputy Secretary (B-18) with effect from 2-11-1982 and as Secretary (B-19) with effect from 7-8-1985. The ATDO was converted into Pakistan Council of Appropriate Technology (hereinafter to be referred as PCAT) through a resolution dated 6-4-1987 where the petitioner continued his service. However, in 1989 he was proceeded against for misconduct on various charges and removed from service on 22-8-1990 under the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He preferred departmental appeal to the Prime Minister which was partially accepted and the order of his removal from service was reviewed vide Notification dated 21-1-1991 whereby he was demoted from BPS-19 to BPS-18 but was reinstated in service; his absence during the interregnum treated as leave on half pay. This order was challenged before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed through the impugned order for lack of jurisdiction.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that since his initial appointment in the T&T Department was as a civil servant his service on deputation to the Semi-Government Organisation or statutory body could not put an end to his civil service and that the learned Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed by him. There is no cavil with the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel but the case in hand has a distinguishing feature, inasmuch as, the petitioner secured retirement from the T&T Department after completion of 25 years' service with effect from 1-9-1982 and availed of the pensionary benefits etc. His continuation in the service of ATDO thereafter could not restore him his original status of civil service of which he had severed all his relations. This controversy came up before the National Assembly in the form of question- answer as well which is incorporated in the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal wherein the Government stand was that lien of the petitioner in T&T Department was terminated with effect from 1-9-1982 and thereafter permanently absorbed in the ATDO and that his continuance in service in ATDO was neither reemployment nor employment on contract basis. The question whether the petitioner was a civil servant or not at the time of the termination of his service and the subsequent modification thereof but reduction in BPS-18 instead of BPS-19 with reinstatement in service has been exhaustively dealt with by the Service Tribunal and we have no reason to differ with the conclusions arrived at by it. The petitioner ceased to be a civil servant after 1-9-1982 and since he was not a civil servant at the time of the impugned order, the learned Service Tribunal rightly declined to assume jurisdiction.
5. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.