Syed WASIM AHMED vs K.E. S.C. and 3 others

1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The appellant in the above appeal joined Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation (KESC) in 1981 as AEE. He was promoted as XEN on 1-1-1992. His services were, however; terminated on 26-3-1997. The appellant filed departmental representation under the service rules of KESC on 19-4-1997 which was rejected on 26-5-1997. The, appellam preferred his appeal before the Hon'ble Service Tribunal on 25-6-1997 impugning the order of his termination from service, dated 26-3-1997. The learned Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that on the date the appellant's services were terminated, he was not declared a civil servant for purposes of availing the remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal and, therefore, his appeal before the Service Tribunal was not maintainable. We have heard the petitioner, who is appearing in person, as well as counsel for KESC.

2. ' It is an admitted position that on 10-6-1997 when section 2-A was added in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') no proceedings in the case were pending. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner could file appeal before the learned Service Tribunal on the basis of insertion of section 2-A in the Act? As a result of insertion of section 2-A in the Act the appellant is deemed to be a civil servant for purposes of availing of remedy available to him under the Act. It cannot be disputed that but for the insertion of section 2-A in the Act, the appellant would have been entitled to challenge order of his termination from service in appropriate proceedings before the Court. However, as a result of above amendment brought about in the Act that remedy has been taken away from the appellant. It is also quite clear that had there been any proceedings pending on the date section 2-A was inserted in the Act, the appellant would have been entitled to approach the Service Tribunal on abatement of such proceedings within 90 days of the establishment of appropriate Tribunal. It may be mentioned here that the right of appeal has been made available to the civil servants both under section 4 as well as under section 6 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act was amended in 1974 by Act XXXI of 1974 which conferred right of appeal to a civil servant aggrieved by an order, whether original or appellate made by the departmental authority in respect of any terms and conditions of his service within 30 days of the communication of said order or within 6 months of the establishment of appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, to prefer appeal before such Tribunal. In the present case, the departmental appeal filed by the appellant was rejected on 26-5-1997 but before he could file any other proceedings to challenge the original order of termination passed by the departmental authority, the law was amended and, therefore, in our view, the appellant was entitled to present his appeal within 6 months from the date the Tribunal was conferred jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a person aggrieved by the order in respect of terms and conditions of service of an employee of a corporation or organisation controlled or managed by the Government. Since the appeal was present by the appellant before the learned Service Tribunal within one month of the order of rejection of his representation by the Departmental Authority, in our view, he was entitled to maintain his appeal before the Service Tribunal. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside order of the learned Service Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law.