M.A. RASHID RANA vs CHIEF SECRETARY
This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the respondent to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 6-12-1997, which had declared the petitioner's date of birth to be 13th of March, 1939, rather than 13th of March, 1937. The core legal question was whether the respondent was under a legal obligation to implement the Tribunal's judgment and whether the mere filing of an appeal operated as a suspension of that judgment. The Court held that the respondent is under a legal obligation to give effect to the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, as the filing of an appeal does not operate as an automatic suspension of the Tribunal's judgment. The key principle laid down is that authorities are bound to implement service tribunal judgments unless stayed by a superior court, and non-compliance permits aggrieved parties to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
- Whether the filing of an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal operates as an automatic suspension of the judgment?
- Can an aggrieved party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the non-compliance of a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment?
- Is a respondent under a legal obligation to give effect to the declaration of a service tribunal regarding a civil servant's date of birth?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for direction to the respondent to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 6-12-1997. The petition was admitted to hearing. Notice was issued to the respondent. The parawise comments have been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that date of birth of the petitioner was declared by the Tribunal as 13th of March, 1939 instead of 13th of March, 1937, therefore, the respondent is under legal obligation to give effect to the same and take the petitioner on duty.
3. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the respondent in the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal contacted the Punjab University and was informed that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded with the University remained as 13th of March, 1937, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while summing up the arguments submitted that date of birth of the petitioner as 13th of March, 1939 was accepted by the Tribunal after examining official of the Punjab University with the record and hearing the Government, therefore, the matter is now between the Government and the respondent and Punjab University has nothing to do with this issue.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The upshot of this discussion is that the respondent is under legal obligation to give effect to the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal and filing of appeal does not operate as suspension of the judgment of the Tribunal. In case of non-compliance of the judgment of the Tribunal the officials can have resort to the Constitutional jurisdiction. This has been decided in the cases reported as S.H.H. Rizvi and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others (PLD 1981 SC 612) and S.Inamul Hag v.
Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan (1983 CLC 1954).
6. In this view of the matter this writ petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to give effect to the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal by 6th of April, 1998. This is subject to the order/judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court passed in Miscellaneous petition or in the main appeal.
There will be no order as to costs.
Cited by 8 cases
- Mirza QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Home Department, Lahore and 3 others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 64
- AZIZ-UR-REHMAN CHAUDHRY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another 2009 PLC (C.S.) 668
- AZIZ-UR-REHMAN CHAUDHRY vs FEDERATON OF PAKISTAN and another 2009 PLC (C.S.) 914
- Sheikh ABDUL MAJEED vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PROGRESSIVE PAPER LIMITED/ 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1191
- Mirza Qamar-Uz-Zaman vs Government Of The Punjab, Lahore Through Secretary, Home Department And 3 Other K.LR. 2009 Labour & Service Cases 220
- Mirza Qamar-uz-Zaman vs Government of the Punjab, Lahore through Secretary, Home Department and 3 others 2009 C.L.R. 1397
- SAQIB MAHMOOD vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF PAKISTAN 2009 PLJ Lahore 180
- Saqib Mahmood vs The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan and 2 others 2009 C.L.R. 239