KHURSHID AHMED GOREJA vs THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others
This petition challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his demotion from BPS-19 to BPS-18 by the Pakistan Council of Appropriate Technology (PCAT). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had previously served in the Telephone and Telegraph Department, retained the status of a 'civil servant' at the time of his demotion, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily retired from his original civil service position in the Telephone and Telegraph Department in 1982, availing himself of pensionary benefits and severing his lien. Consequently, his subsequent employment with the Appropriate Technology Development Organisation (later PCAT) did not constitute civil service. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was not a civil servant at the time of the impugned order. The key principle established is that an individual who severs their lien with a government department through retirement and pension withdrawal ceases to be a civil servant, and subsequent employment in a statutory body does not restore that status for the purposes of Service Tribunal jurisdiction.
- Does an employee who retires from a government department and draws pensionary benefits retain their status as a civil servant?
- Can a Service Tribunal exercise jurisdiction over an employee who is not a civil servant at the time of the impugned order?
- Does continued service in a statutory body after retirement from a government department restore the original status of a civil servant?
- 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.