MUHAMMAD TAIB and another vs ZAR GUL KHAN and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had set aside a promotion order and remanded the case for fresh consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The respondent, an Assistant Sericulture Development Officer, had challenged the promotion of the petitioners, claiming seniority. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, citing the statutory bar contained in the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Supreme Court observed that the contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction appeared to have merit, noting that the subject matter might be barred under the relevant provisions of the Act read with the Civil Servants Act. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the relief granted by the Tribunal was permissible within its appellate jurisdiction and whether the subject matter was indeed barred by the cited statutory provisions. The Court ordered that the status quo remain in effect pending the final decision of the appeal.
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant relief in matters of promotion where such matters are barred under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
- Does the bar contained in section 4(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, preclude the Service Tribunal from adjudicating on promotion disputes?
- Section 4, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974
- Section 4(b), N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974
- Section 22, Civil Servants Act
ORDER
MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 18-4-1996.
2. Facts of the case, briefly, are that Zar Gul Khan, respondent, who was employed as Assistant Sericulture Development Officer (B-11) in Sericulture Wing of N.-W.F.P.
Forest Department, filed appeal before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal against the order dated 30-5- 1995 of respondent No,2 whereby petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were promoted as Sericulture Development Officers (B-16) and respondent No, 1 claiming to be senior to them was not promoted.
The appeal was obviously resisted by both the petitioners and the official respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal was devoid of jurisdiction in view of the bar of. Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
3. The Service Tribunal, however, without adverting to the objection of lack of jurisdiction, accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 30-5-1995 "alongwith the minutes of the D.P.C. And remanded the case to the respondent/administrative department to consider the case of the appellant alongwith respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by the D.P.C. Afresh for recording their recommendations as laid down and stated above".
4. Qazi Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the learned Members of the Service Tribunal have allowed the relief in exercise of their appellate jurisdiction which could not at all be granted to respondent No, 1, in that, the subject-matter was clearly barred under section 4(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on two cases of this Court:
(i) Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCM R 696) and (ii) Mian Abdul Malik v.
Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui and 4 others (1991 SCM R 1129).
5. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has prima facie some merit. We would, therefore, grant leave to appeal to consider the following questions of law of public importance, namely,--
(a) whether, the relief allowed by the Tribunal in its appellate jurisdiction to respondent No, 1 could at all be granted? And
(b) whether the subject-matter was not clearly barred under section 4(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act?
6. Status quo already granted shall continue till the decision of the appeal.