MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, through CHIEF SECRETARY, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and others
The petitioners challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed their appeal regarding service matters. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the delay in filing the appeal, which they attributed to pursuing alternative remedies like writ petitions and departmental representations. Furthermore, they argued that service rules could not be amended to their detriment after their induction. Conversely, the respondents argued that the appeal before the Tribunal was procedurally flawed due to the non-impleadment of the competent authority (the Board) and the filing of a joint appeal, which they claimed was legally incompetent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether employees possess a vested right to be governed by the rules in force at the time of their induction or if they are subject to subsequent amendments. The Court also sought to determine whether the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by laches and whether the joint appeal was maintainable. The Court declined to grant interim relief, citing potential disruption to departmental functions, and directed the main appeal to be scheduled for hearing within six months.
- Do employees have a vested right to be governed by the service rules in force at the time of their induction?
- Can service rules be amended to the detriment of existing employees?
- Is a joint appeal filed by multiple petitioners before a Service Tribunal legally competent?
- Does the failure to implead the competent authority render an appeal before a Service Tribunal incompetent?
ORDER
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.--- 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 vested right to claim so and they will be governed by the amended rules;
(ii) Whether the appeal before the Tribunal suffered from laches/undue delay and misjoinder of parties; and
(iii) Whether joint appeal before the Board by all the pet;tioners 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.