| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1672 2021 SLD 1672 2021 SCMR 1390 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1097-L of 2020, decided on 1st July, 2021, Date of hearing: 1st July, 2021. (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 19.02.2020, passed in W.P. No. 231042 of 2018)
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Muhammad Arif Raja, Additional A.G. Punjab for Petitioners. Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasnim Amin, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Civil Petition No. 1097-L of 2020, decided on 1st July, 2021, Date of hearing: 1st July, 2021. (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 19.02.2020, passed in W.P. No. 231042 of 2018)
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Muhammad Arif Raja, Additional A.G. Punjab for Petitioners. Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasnim Amin, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHErs
VS
MS. SHAMIM USMAN
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 212,199
Law: Punjab Service Tribunals Act, (IX of 1974)
Section: 4(1)(b)
Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 212 199---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4(1)(b)---Service matters---Terms and conditions of service of a civil servant---Bar of jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in respect of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant which could be adjudicated upon by the Service Tribunal under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Non-obstante clauses of Articles 212(1) and (2) of the Constitution began with notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, thus overriding, inter alia, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, which was already subject to the Constitution. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in respect of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant which could be adjudicated upon by the Service Tribunal under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (the Act). High Court as a constitutional court should always be mindful of the jurisdictional exclusion contained under Article 212 of the Constitution. Any transgression of such constitutional limitation would render the order of the High Court void and illegal. National Assembly Secretariat through Secretary v. Mansoor Ahmed and others 2015 SCMR 253 and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456 ref. It was only under section 4(1)(b) of the Act that no appeal could lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision determining the fitness of a person to be appointed or promoted and fell outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In order to fall in the exception envisaged under section 4(1)(b) of the Act, the order must determine fitness of a civil servant to an appointment or promotion. Therefore, unless the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was ousted under section 4(1)(b) of the Act, assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in respect of matters of terms and conditions of a civil servant was unconstitutional and impermissible. ORDER SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that on the recommendations of the Provincial Selection Board in its meeting held on…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492