ANWAR BEG, S.E.T. and 2 others vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Education, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others
This matter involves three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal. The petitioners, appointed as S.E.T. (Science) in BPS-15 on fixed pay, sought regularization of their services and the grant of graded pay from their initial dates of appointment. While the Service Tribunal partially allowed the appeals by directing the department to award graded pay from the date the petitioners acquired the requisite B.Ed. qualification, it failed to address or adjudicate the prayer regarding the regularization of their appointments. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that this omission constituted a failure to exercise vested jurisdiction, particularly in light of Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1988. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal's failure to decide the regularization prayer required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal erred in failing to exercise its jurisdiction regarding the regularization claim, thereby establishing that a judicial or quasi-judicial body must adjudicate all prayers raised in an appeal.
- Does the failure of a Service Tribunal to decide a specific prayer in an appeal amount to a failure to exercise vested jurisdiction?
- Are employees appointed on fixed pay entitled to regularization under the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1988?
- Section 3, N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1988
ORDER
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---This order will govern disposal of abovementioned three petitions in which identical question of law and facts are involved.
2. ' The petitioners in the abovementioned petitions were appointed as S.E.T. (Science) in BPS-15 on fixed pay on different dates in the year 1987. The petitioners thereafter improved their educational qualification and also earned experience of teaching for more than five years as S.E.T. (Science).
3. Subsequently' the post of S.E.T. (Science) was upgraded to BPS-16 in 1991 and pay scales of petitioners were also revised. The petitioners submitted departmental appeal praying for grant of graded pay from the dates they acquired requisite qualification as well as for regularisation of their appointments as S.E.T. (Science). After waiting for a period of 90 days the petitioners filed appeals before the Service Tribunal in which they made the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the petitioners may very kindly be regularised and may also be awarded graded/running pay from the date of appointment with other benefits."
4. ' The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeals partly and directed the department to award graded pay 'from the dates the petitioners acquired requisite qualification, i,e, B.Ed. For the post of S.E.T. With arrears if any from that date. However, the learned Tribunal neither adverted to nor decided the other prayer in the appeals with regard to regularisation of the appointments of the petitioners as S.E.T. (Science).
5. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the failure of the learned Tribunal to decide the above prayer amounted to refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal, as the petitioners have no other remedy available to them under the law against the action of departmental authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions of section 3 of Act I of 1988 petitioners were entitled to be regularised in their posts.
6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.