Dr. AZAM SARFRAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 4 others
The petitioner, a former Federal Government servant, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal (PST) which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner had initially approached the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) regarding his dismissal from service, but the FST declined jurisdiction based on the Transfer of Population Welfare Programme (Field Activities) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, which purportedly transferred the petitioner to the Provincial Welfare Department of the Punjab. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew the appeal from the FST and filed it before the PST. The PST subsequently dismissed the appeal, holding that because the impugned dismissal order was passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan, it fell outside the PST's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address the conflicting findings of the two Tribunals regarding jurisdiction, noting that the petitioner had been denied adjudication on the merits by both forums, resulting in a potential miscarriage of justice. The Court directed the parties to file concise statements for further hearing.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a dismissal order passed by the Federal Government?
- Does the Transfer of Population Welfare Programme (Field Activities) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, effectively transfer jurisdiction over service appeals from the Federal Service Tribunal to the Punjab Service Tribunal?
- Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal on jurisdictional grounds when the impugned order was issued by a federal authority?
- Transfer of Population Welfare Programme (Field Activities) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment, dated 8-12- 2003, passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the PST) in appeal No, 1890 of 2002, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed.
2. The detailed facts of the case are already narrated in the impugned judgment, which are not required to be mentioned here again.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authority through order, dated 17-5-2001, dismissed him from service, which order was challenged by him by filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the FST). Before the FST, the Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, took an objection that although the petitioner was a Federal Government Servant, governed by the rules and regulations made under the Federal Government, but on account of an amendment in the Transfer of Population Welfare Programme (Field Activities) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, dated 25-7-2001, he automatically became an employee of the Provincial Welfare Department, Government of the Punjab and that the FST had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same appeal was withdrawn and thereafter, the appeal before the PST was filed.
The PST, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal with the following observations:--- "The order assailed in the instant appeal is passed by Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan and as such is outside the ambit of jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal. This Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed without any order as to costs."
4. Mr. Muhammad Bilal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the appeal of the petitioner by the FST as well as PST declining to exercise the power vested in them, has resulted into miscarriage of Justice; that the petitioner has been knocked out by both the learned Tribunals without adjudicating the matter on merits and that the conflicting decisions of the learned Tribunals require just, fair and equitable decision purely in accordance with law laid down by this Court.
5. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal to consider the above points, and to see whether the findings of both the learned Tribunals on the point of jurisdiction are tenable. Parties are further directed to fileconcise statement in support of their case. Notice to the respondents shall also be issued well in time.
6. Since, it is a service matter, the appeal shall be fixed for hearingafter filing of the concise statement and due service upon the respondents within a period of six months, after obtaining necessary approval from the Honourable Chief Justice.