Pakistan Case Law
1998 SCMR 220

JAVED HUSSAIN SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1998 SCMR 220
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,286-L of 1997 W.P. No,4753 of 1997
Date1997-03-31
Judge(s)Zia Mahmood Mirza, Irshad Hassan Khan and Raja Afrasiab Khan
Authored byZia Mahmood Mirza
ResultAppeal accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an interim stay order passed by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition. The petitioner challenged the High Court's order, arguing that the underlying dispute concerned the terms and conditions of the respondent's service, thereby falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the High Court's jurisdiction was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant interim relief in a service matter without first addressing the threshold issue of its own jurisdiction under Article 212. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had issued the stay order without considering the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter to the High Court with a specific direction to pass a fresh order on the stay application only after explicitly deciding the question of its jurisdiction in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the terms and conditions of service in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Must the High Court decide the question of its jurisdiction before granting an interim stay order in a service-related matter?
  • Can the Supreme Court remand a matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on an interim stay application if the jurisdictional issue was not initially addressed?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
service matterjurisdiction of High CourtArticle 212interim stay orderService Tribunalconstitutional petitionjurisdictional objection

ORDER

' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner is aggrieved of an interim stay order dated 3-3-1997 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in a Constitutional Petition (W.P. No,4753 of 1997) filed by Syed Hamid Gul Shah, respondent No,5 herein and he seeks leave to appeal against the said order. By an order dated 11-3-1997 passed by me in Chamber, it was directed that the stay matter (C.M.A. No,134-L of 1997) together with the petition for leave to appeal be fixed in the next week and meanwhile the petitioner, if so advised, may make an application in the High Court seeking the recall of the impugned interim stay order.

2. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioner has since moved an application (C.M. No,3 of 1997) in the High Court for vacation of the interim order contending therein that since the matter agitated by the respondent through Constitutional Petition related to the terms and conditions of his service, jurisdiction of the High Court was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. Notice of this application, it appears, was issued to the respondent/writpetitioner on 14-3-1997 but no final order, it is submitted, has been passed so far.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the dispute raised by the respondent in the High Court through Constitutional Petition could only be agitated in an appeal before the Service-Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters and the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution. The learned Judge in the High Court, however, passed the impugned stay order without attending to the question of jurisdiction.

As noted above, petitioner has specifically raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the High Court through a Misc. Application (C.M. No,3 of 1997) which application is stated to be still pending It is not being denied that the learned Judge in the High Court before passing the impugned stay order did not advert to the question of jurisdiction with reference to the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same with the direction that the High Court may pass a fresh order on the stay application of the writ- petitioner after attending to and deciding the question of its jurisdiction with reference to the Provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution.

Cited by 4 cases

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