Pakistan Case LawSheikh MUHAMMAD ASGHAR Versus The CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and 5
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal in limine. The petitioner, initially appointed as a Cashier and later as a Revenue Officer on probation, had his services dispensed with. He previously challenged his termination through a constitutional petition, which resulted in a compromise wherein he withdrew the petition and accepted re-appointment as a Cashier. Subsequently, he re-agitated the matter regarding his earlier termination before the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether an employee, having compromised a previous challenge and accepted a lower post under an arrangement, could subsequently turn around and challenge the termination order again. The Supreme Court held that having acted upon the settlement arrangement, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the termination order. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that a party who compromises a legal proceeding and acts upon the settlement cannot subsequently reagitate the settled grievance.
- Can an employee challenge a termination order after compromising a previous constitutional petition and accepting a lower post under that arrangement?
- Whether an employee who has acted upon a settlement arrangement can subsequently reagitate the legality of their termination?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2.The petitioner was appointed as Cashier on 29-5-1986. On 1-6-1989 he was appointed Revenue Officer on one year's probation period. On 15-5-1991 his services were dispensed with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged this order in a Constitution Petition and it seems that the parties compromised. WAPDA offered the petitioner to join as a Cashier and to withdraw the petition. The petition was accordingly withdrawn and the petitioner continued his service as a Cashier. The petitioner seems to have agitated the question again challenging the termination of service on the ground that the termination was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment as he had completed the period of probation and clause 2(ii) of the letter of appointment could not be invoked. The learned Members of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of termination was illegal and the respondents had no authority to pass such an order. The petitioner had challenged the order in the Constitution Petition and agreed to join as a Cashier and to withdraw his petition. Now having acted upon the said arrangement, he cannot challenge the order of termination. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments