Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2762 2024 SLD 2762 2024 SCMR 563
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 167-P and 391 of 2022, decided on 15thJanuary, 2024.(Against the judgment dated 18.12.2021passed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Subordinate Judiciary ServiceTribunal in Service Appeal No.06-P of 2021)Per SyedMansoor Ali Shah, J; Amin-u
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Amin-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Ayesha A. Malik and Athar Minallah, JJ
Petitioner in -person (in C.P. 167-P of 2022).Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. 391 of 2022).Syed Hamid Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents (in C.P. 391

Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH and another---Petitioners

VS

KALEEM ARSHAD and others---Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 212(2)

Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 212(2), proviso, 212(3) & 142---Order of a Tribunal created by a Provincial law---Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Maintainability---Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) against an order of a Tribunal created by a Provincial law to which the proviso to Clause (2) of the Article 212 has not been made applicable---[Per Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. (Majority view): Proviso to clause (2) does not apply to clause (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution---Appeals against orders of the Provincial Administrative Tribunals are competent before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Supreme Court over ruled the law declared in such regard in the judgment reported as Gomal Medical College v. Armaghan Khan (PLD 2023 SC 190)]---[Per Ayesha A. Malik, J. (Minority view): As Article 212(1) of the Constitution itself confers jurisdiction on the Provincial Legislature to establish the Provincial Tribunal under Article 212(1), the Constitution also confers appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of the said Provincial Tribunal---Discussion of the majority opinion in the instant matter on Entry 55 of the Federal Legislative List (FLL), is not relevant to the dispute at hand] Per Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. (Majority view) Clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution is merely an ouster clause and not a jurisdiction clause. In case of Federal Tribunals, it provides that no other court can take jurisdiction over any matter which falls under the subject matter of the Administrative Tribunal established under Article 212(1). If clause (2) has not been made applicable to a Provincial Tribunal, it at best means that there are other forums also available to redress the grievance of the officers, e.g., the High Court under Article 199 or the Civil Courts under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In the absence of clause (2), all the judicial forums in a Province have concurrent jurisdiction along with the Provincial Administrative Tribunal. Once a civil servant invokes the jurisdiction of the Provincial Tribunal,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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