SAEED ULLAH, LINE SUPERINTENDENT-I vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LESCO LTD.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition filed by a Line Superintendent seeking implementation of a Federal Service Tribunal order and challenging a subsequent compulsory retirement order. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a dispute regarding terms and conditions of service, specifically concerning reinstatement and compulsory retirement, given the existence of a specialized service tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner was correctly directed to seek redressal through the competent forum. The Court affirmed that disputes relating to terms and conditions of service are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that the bar placed by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil servants, mandating that such grievances must be addressed by the appropriate Service Tribunal rather than through writ jurisdiction.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate disputes regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan bar the High Court from entertaining petitions concerning service matters?
- Is a dispute regarding compulsory retirement and reinstatement of a civil servant exclusively triable by a Service Tribunal?
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Article 212, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 4-3-2002, whereby Constitutional petition was disposed of with the direction that the petitioner would be at liberty to see remedy available to him under the law.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the petitioner, who was a Line Superintendent, Sharaqpur Sub-Division, was removed from service whereupon he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was accepted vide judgment 31-7-2001. The removal order, dated 20-4-1999 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be re-instated in service subject to de novo proceedings within a period of six months. The matter of arrears of pay and allowances for the intervening period was to follow the result of de novo proceedings. Another order was passed on 29-12-1999, whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for seeking implementation of the order, dated 31-7-2001 of the Federal Service Tribunal qua his reinstatement with a further prayer that his compulsory retirement order, dated 29-12-1999 be declared without awful authority and of no legal effect. A learned Single Judge has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition directing the petitioner to approach the competent forum for redressal of his grievance. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed and the same is also reflected from the impugned order that the petitioner tiled an appeal/representation against the order of his compulsory retirement, dated 29-12-1999 before respondent No,4, Managing Director Power, WAPDA. The learned Judge, as reflected from the impugned judgment, directed the respondent No,4 to dispose of the appeal/representation of the petitioner within a fortnight on merits.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner, on our query, informed us that the said appeal has been dismissed by respondent No,4. In the circumstances of this case no illegality was committed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in disposing of the writ petition directing the petitioner to avail remedy provided under the law. The subject-matter of the present dispute relates to a term and condition. The subject-matter of this petition in view of the bar placed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal constituted under the law.
5. ' Learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order warranting inference by this Court. Accordingly this petition is dismissed and leave is refused.