Pakistan Case Law
1997 PLC (C.S.) 852

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 PLC (C.S.) 852
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 441 of 1996
Date1997-05-28
Judge(s)Dr. Munir Ahmed Mughal
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner, a civilian employee of the Special Communication Organisation, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the respondents to clarify the service rules applicable to civilian employees and to decide on his pending representation. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The Court examined whether it possessed jurisdiction over the matter given the petitioner's employment status. The Court held that because the petitioner was a civilian on 'active service' within a military organization, he was subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the express bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits the High Court from issuing orders regarding the terms and conditions of service for persons subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to adjudicate service matters of civilian employees subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Are civilian employees of the Special Communication Organisation considered persons subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 while on active service?
  • What is the effect of Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on petitions filed by persons subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
  • Section 2(1)(c), Pakistan Army Act, 1952
  • Section 8(1), Pakistan Army Act, 1952
constitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilityactive servicecivilian employeesmilitary organizationservice conditionsPakistan Army Actouster of jurisdiction

The petitioner through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has prayed for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to decide as to what set of rules/regulations in the matter of service conditions and conditions of work are applicable to the civilian employees of the Special Communication Organisation, Rawalpindi to avoid discriminatory treatment meted out by respondent No. 2. In the alternate, it has been prayed that a direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to pass a final order on the representation of the petitioner.

2. Parawise comments have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised an objection about the maintainability of this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to meet the argument by asserting that when no alternate or efficacious remedy is available, Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked.

The argument is not legally sound.

4. The petitioners are civilian persons and are on active service in the Special Communication Organisation, which is Military Organisation. This being so, the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is barred under clause (3) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which reads as under: -- "199. Jurisdiction of High Court.---(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law--

(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order--

(i) directing a person performing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation a Province or a local authority; authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do or to do anything he is required by law to do; or

(ii) ...............

(b) ................

(i) ................

(ii)................

(c)................

(2)................

(3) An order shall not be made under clause (1) on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, or who is for the the being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces, in respect of his terms and conditions of service, in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or as a person subject to such law.

5. A perusal of section 2(1)(c) and section 8(1) of the Pakistan Army Act makes the controversy clear. It reads as under: -- "2. Persons subject to the Act.---(1) The following persons shall be subject to this Act, namely,

(a) ................

(b) ................

(bb) ..............

(c) persons not otherwise subject to this Act, who on active service, in camp, on the march, or at any frontier post specified by the Federal Government by notification in this behalf, are employed by, or are in the service of or are followers of, or accompany any portion of the Pakistan Army.

Section 8 of the Army Act, 1952 defines the words "active service" as under: -- "(1) "active service" as applied to a person subject to this Act, means the the during such person is attached to or, forms part of a force which is engaged in operations against any enemy or is engaged in military operations in, or is on the line of march to, a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy, or is attached to or forms part of a force which is in military occupation of a foreign country . "

6. It is, thus, established that the petitioners being on active service are subject to Army Act, 1952.

This being the position, this petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Cited by 6 cases

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