PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service matter concerning the suspension of civil servants. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, specifically the suspension of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar on such jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service, including suspension, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and the High Court's jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. However, despite this clear legal position regarding jurisdiction, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's impugned order in this specific instance. The Court held that the continuous suspension of the respondents was ex facie unjustified, rendering the case unsuitable for interference. The Court emphasized that this decision was strictly confined to the unique facts of the present case and did not alter the established principle regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in service-related disputes.
- Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the suspension of a civil servant?
- Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an impugned order of the High Court even if the High Court lacked jurisdiction, based on the specific facts of the case?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matters relating to terms and conditions of service of the civil servants also include suspension from service of a civil servant and that the Service Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters in appropriate proceedings. The jurisdiction of the High Court is clearly barred in such matters under Article 212 of the Constitution.
2. ' Be that as it may, in the instant case, we find that continuous suspension from service of the respondents was ex facie unjustified. This is, therefore, not a fit case for interference with the impugned order of the High Court. This order is, however, confined to the facts of this case alone.
3. ' Resultantly the petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 8 cases
- TARIQ MAQSOOD vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 997
- Mst. Irshad Begum & another vs Government of Punjab & others 2017 LHC 455
- Mst. Irshad Begum and another vs Government of Punjab and others K.L.R. 2017 Labour & Service Cases 66
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 2 others vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION 2001 SCMR 1945
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1015
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX_WEALTH TAX, BAHAWALPUR ZONE BAHAWALPUR and 2 others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1632
- MUNIR AHMED SHEIKH vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and another 2002 PLC (C.S.) 394
- Munir Ahmed Sheikh vs Federation Of Pakistan Through The Secretary K.L.R. 2003 Labour fit Service Cases 126