FAIZ AHMAD KHAN and another vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN ABID and 2 others
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via petitions for leave to appeal challenging an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 3-8-1998, which accepted the respondent's appeal regarding the refusal of promotion. The core legal question concerns whether an impugned order affecting a necessary party can be passed without hearing them and whether such a party qualifies as an aggrieved person. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner Faiz Ahmad Khan was not a party before the Tribunal when the respondent's appeal was accepted, necessitating a remand of the case. The Court laid down the principle that matters where necessary parties are unrepresented or unheard before the service tribunal must be remanded, granting liberty to aggrieved persons to apply for impleadment in the pending proceedings.
- Whether an order of a Service Tribunal can be passed without hearing a necessary party?
- Can a government employee be forced to accept a promotion against their wishes?
- How should an appellate court deal with an impugned order passed in the absence of an affected 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 accpted 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. IA We consider it appropriate to remand the case to the Tribunal. The petitioner or any body else feeling aggrieved in this case 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 1 case
- FAYSAL BANK LIMITED KARACHI, through its MANAGING DIRECTOR and 2 2004 PLJ Lahore 853