Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Section: 2A,2(a), 2(1)(b)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 212,260,199

Law: Cantonments Act, 1924

Section: 280(2)(c),280(2)(f)

Law: Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954

Section: 2(d),2(ggg),2(h),3,3(2),49,55–58, 60A

Law: Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2010

Section:

 (1) The jurisdiction of every Court is delineated to pass legal orders (2) No Court has the right to decide any lawsuit which is beyond the purview of its jurisdiction (3) Employees of Cantonment Board are not Civil Servants hence Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction (4) Such employees may approach the High Court for redressal. Summary The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) lacked jurisdiction to decide a Cantonment Board employee’s service appeal after the omission of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The FST’s impugned judgment of 20.11.2023 was set aside and the petitioner’s FST appeal dismissed. The Court directed the Cantonment Board to comply with an earlier office order dated 06.06.2023 and conduct a de-novo inquiry within three months, guaranteeing the respondent a fair opportunity of defence; the respondent may thereafter pursue remedies under the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 and/or file a writ in the High Court. Core points  Issue: Whether Cantonment Board employees are “civil servants” entitled to FST jurisdiction under STA 1973 and Article 212. Legal history: Section 2A (1997) of STA 1973 had earlier extended FST jurisdiction to some employees of authorities/corporations; Section 2A was omitted in 2010. Statutory distinction: “Civil servant” under Civil Servants Act, 1973 is narrower than “service of Pakistan”; Parliament cannot, by ordinary statute, expand Article 212 jurisdiction. Applicable regime: Cantonment servants are governed by Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 (with selective application of Fundamental Rules and Revised Leave Rules, 1980), not CSA 1973. Jurisdictional failure: Preliminary objection to FST jurisdiction was raised below but the FST did not decide it; that failure is critical because courts must resolve jurisdiction first. Result: FST judgment (20.11.2023) set aside as coram non judice; FST appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Directions: Cantonment Board must follow office order dated 06.06.2023 (Assistant Director General HR) and hold a de-novo…