FAIZ AHMAD KHAN and another vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN ABID and 2 others
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal challenging an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which accepted the respondent's appeal regarding the refusal of promotion against the department's wishes. The core legal question concerns whether an order affecting a party could be passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard and whether such a party qualifies as an aggrieved person. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the petitioner, Faiz Ahmad Khan, was not a party before the Tribunal when the respondent's appeal was accepted, the matter warranted a remand. The Court set aside the proceedings and disposed of the petitions by converting them into appeals and granting liberty to aggrieved persons to apply for impleadment as respondents before the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that necessary parties must be impleaded and heard before a service tribunal passes an order affecting their rights.
- Can a service tribunal pass an order affecting a party without hearing them?
- Is a person who was not a party before the service tribunal entitled to be impleaded upon remand?
- What is the appropriate course of action when an order is passed by a tribunal without impleading a necessary party?
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 3-8-1998, the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed the following order:- "The record of the case has been gone through. It seems to be a rather strange position that the department is insisting for promoting its employee while the employee consistently refusing his promotion. It is also to be noted that the appellant's request of foregoing his promotion was also approved by the Chief Minister and in spite of that, the department insists of promoting the appellant. The appeal is accepted and the department has no justification to impose on him the promotion against his wishes."
' These petitions for leave to appeal have been instituted challenging the validity of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. .2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.P. 1544-L of 1998 has submitted that the petitioner was necessary party and without hearing him the impugned order could not have been passed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of law.
3. Be that as it may, we are of the view that Faiz Ahmad Khan was not a party before the Tribunal when the appeal of the respondent was accepted. We consider it appropriate to remand the case to the Tribunal. The petitioner or any body else feeling aggrieved in this cause before the Tribunal may make an application before it for being impleaded as a respondent in the private respondent's Appeal No,329 of 1998. With this observation, these petitions are converted into appeal and disposed of with no order as to costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- University of Agriculture, etc vs Tasneem Kausar, etc 2017 [M] C.L.R. 994
- UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, etc. vs TASNEEM KAUSAR, etc. 2017 PLJ Lahore 918
- UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE Versus TASNEEM KAUSAR 2018 PLC(CS)N 183