MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others
This civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 16-9-1999, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against departmental authorities. The petitioners challenged the dismissal, contending that service rules could not be amended to their detriment and that the delay in approaching the Service Tribunal was duly explained by their prior pursuit of remedies before the High Court and through departmental representations. Conversely, the Caveator argued that the appeal before the Tribunal was procedurally defective due to the non-joinder of the competent Board as a necessary party, undue delay, and the filing of an improper joint appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether civil servants possess a vested right to be governed by service rules prevailing at the time of their induction or if they are subject to subsequent amendments, alongside procedural questions concerning laches, misjoinder, and the competence of a joint appeal. The Court declined interim relief to prevent disruption of departmental functions and directed the main appeal to be fixed within six months.
- Whether civil servants can legally claim a vested right to be governed by the service rules prevailing at the time of their induction, or whether they are governed by subsequent amended rules?
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal suffers from laches, undue delay, or misjoinder of necessary parties when prior departmental representations and writ petitions were pursued?
- Whether a joint appeal filed before the departmental appellate authority or Tribunal by multiple petitioners is legally competent?
ORDER
' The petitioners have assailed the correctness of the impugned judgment, dated 16-9-1999, of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal filed by them against the departmental authorities was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to pages 122, 124, 125 and 126, explained the delay which occurred in approaching the Service Tribunal. According to these pages, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court, filed representation and approached the competent Authority to decide their representation. Learned counsel also explained that the rules could not be changed to their detriment and that this aspect of the case has not been considered in correct perspective by the learned Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Caveator submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal was not properly instituted, as the Board, which was the competent Authority in the matter, was not impleaded as party. Moreover, the joint appeal by the petitioners in the Tribunal was also stated to be bad in law.
'
4. We grant leave to appeal to consider the following points:--
(i) Whether the petitioners can legally claim to be governed by the rules which prevailed at the time of their induction in service, or they have no vested right to claim so and they will be governed by the amended rules?
(ii) Whether the appeal before the Tribunal suffered from lathes/undue delay and misjoinder of parties? And
(iii) Whether joint appeal before the Board by all the petitioners was not competent?
5. We are not inclined to grant any interim relief in the matter as it would adversely affect the function of the department before the matter is finally concluded by this Court. However, the main appeal may be fixed for hearing within six months.