Pakistan Case Law
1997 SCMR 1124

Hafiz KHALID IRSHAD vs AHMAD KHAN WATTOO And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 SCMR 1124
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 2018-L of 1996 W. P. No. 16940 of 1996
Date1996-11-19
Judge(s)Fazal Ilahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan
Authored byZia Mahmood Mirza
ResultCase remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a service dispute between two civil servants belonging to the Local Council Service concerning their inter se transfer and posting as Chief Officer, Zila Council. Respondent No. 1 challenged his transfer order through a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which admitted the petition and granted an interim stay order in his favour. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the interim stay order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, with the jurisdiction of other courts expressly barred under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. The Court set aside the interim stay order and observed that the High Court must first determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any interim order, directing the High Court to preferably dispose of the writ petition within two months.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain service matters of civil servants stand barred under Article 212(2) of the Constitution?
  • Must the High Court determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any interim order in a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212(2), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
civil servanttransfer and postingjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalconstitutional petitioninterim stay order

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner and respondent No. l are the officers of Local Council Service and admittedly civil servants. Dispute between them relates to their transfer/posting inter se. It appears that by order dated 18-8-1996, respondent No.1 was posted as Chief Officer, Zila Council.

Narowal but this' order was subsequently cancelled vide order, dated 16th September, 1996 whereby he was posted as Chief Officer, Zila Council. Pakpattan Sharif vice the present petitioner who was directed to report to the Punjab Local Government Board, Lahore for further posting. Order dated 16-9-1996 was modified by order, dated 19th September, 1996, allowing the petitioner to continue as Chief Officer, Zila Council, Pakpattan Sharif and respondent No.1 was instead asked to report to the Punjab Local Government Board for further posting.

2. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a Constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court to assail the validity of the order dated 19-9-1996 contending that his transfer was cancelled at the behest of M.N.A. Who had no jurisdiction in the matter. Writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 23-9-1996 and operation of the order impugned therein was suspended. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the interim stay order issued by the High Court

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As stated above, the dispute between the parties relates to their posting/transfer inter se which is a matter relatable to the terms and conditions of their service. Such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the jurisdiction of all other Courts including High Court is expressly barred by virtue of the provisions of Article 212(2) of the constitution. This aspect of the matter, it appears has not been looked into by the learned Judge in the High Court before passing the impugned order. This petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal which is allowed and the impugned stay order issued by the High Court is set aside with the observation that the High Court should first determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any interim order. The High Court may preferably dispose of writ petition within to months.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.