SHAHID HUSSAIN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, State &
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of his services from the Afghan Refugee Organization. The petitioner, initially appointed on a temporary basis, challenged his termination, arguing that the organization remained operational and that established retrenchment rules, specifically the principle of 'last in, first out,' were ignored. The Service Tribunal had dismissed the appeal in limine, citing the winding up of the organization and the petitioner's temporary status, despite a prior Supreme Court remand order directing a decision on merits. The core legal questions concern whether the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the factual and legal aspects of the case, whether the organization was actually wound up, and whether the petitioner, as a Federal Government employee with ten years of service, was entitled to procedural protections regarding retrenchment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the Tribunal's failure to address these substantive contentions and the necessity of determining the petitioner's rights regarding termination and retrenchment procedures.
- Does a Service Tribunal err in law by dismissing an appeal in limine without addressing the specific factual and legal contentions raised by the appellant?
- Is a temporary employee of a government organization entitled to the protection of retrenchment rules, such as the principle of seniority, upon the winding up of the organization?
- Does the failure of a Service Tribunal to decide a case on merits after a remand order constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
- Rule 13(1), Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974
ORDER
' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This is petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Service Tribunal dated 24-9-1995 whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. Petitioner joined Afghan Refugee Organization in BPS-11 on 16-8-1982 as temporary for a period of 2 years and could be continued in case the Organization continued subject to the usual provisions of termination of temporary employees. Petitioner was then promoted as Selection Grade Assistant in BPS-15 on 13-11-1989 and assigned duties of Acting Refugees Village Administrator somewhere in 1993. During his absence a Field Officer visited different villages, made queries about the registered and unregistered Afghan Refugees. However, in spite of there being no complaint against him his services were terminated on 17-6-1993 alongwith 2 others including Muhammad Haroon Abbasi (petitioner in Civil Petition No,613 of 1995). In the case of Muhammad Haroon Abbasi he was "saked".
On failure of the department to decide his departmental appeal the petitioner approached the Service Tribunal under section 4 challenging the order of termination. However, by order dated 1-11- 1993 the appeal was .Dismissed in limine on the ground that the Afghan Refugee Organization has been wound up and employees have been retrenched. That as their appointment was subject to the continuation of organization he had no vested right to be retained. This order was challenged in this Court and this Court by order dated 14-6-1995 accepted the appeal and directed the admission of appeal by the Service Tribunal and its decision on merits after hearing the parties.
3. The Tribunal in spite of giving adjournments for affording opportunity to the respondents to reply regarding their objection to the appeal, if any, as required under Rule 13(1) of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rule, 1974, heard and dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the petitioner was a temporary employee whose services could be terminated at any time.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the learned Tribunal failed to give its decision on legal and factual aspects of the case which were raised in appeal and urged before the Tribunal. It was further contended that the Afghan Refugee Organization is still functioning and after all if there was any retrenchment to be made, the Rules pertaining to the retrenchment which provide for retrenchment of the junior most should have been followed.
Petitioner being Federal Government employee even if could be removed then on what terms and if he has completed 10 years of service in the Organization. Leave is granted, inter alia, to consider the above contentions.