Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 304 of 1970, decided on 23rd December 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Lahore, dated the 17th November 1970, in Writ Petition No. 1686‑S of 1970).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 177‑Government servant‑Reduction in rank‑Officiating appointee reverted back to post not lower than one he was holding before officiating appoint ment‑No reduction in rank.

Pakistan v. Hikmat Hussain P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 107 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 98(3)(b)‑Government servant‑Breach of terms and conditions of service, not relating to remuneration or age fixed for superannuation Petition under Art. 98 not competent.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 177‑Person in service of a Local Council ,functioning under Basic Democracies Order, 1959‑Not person holding civil post in connection with affairs of Centre or of Province‑Protection of show‑cause notice under Art. 177, not available.

Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. A. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him), instructed by Wali Mohammad Khawaja, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent. ..

Date of hearing : 23rd December 1970.

.‑This petition for special leave to of appeal arises out of an order of the High Court of Lahore dismis sing in limine the petitioner's application under Article 98 of the Constitution.

In his application before the High Court the petitioner alleged that he was reduced in rank from Class II (Senior) to Class II (Junior) Cadre of Local Council Service, in contravention of the terms and conditions of his service and of the provisions of the Constitution. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order of reversion was illegal.

The High Court repelled this contention and said that the petitioner had been appointed to Class It (Senior) Cadre provi sionally pending final determination of the question of his absorption in the Local Council Service. As certain charges against the petitioner were under enquiry, the High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the question of mala fides raised by the petitioner.

It appears that the petitioner was first appointed as a Super visor Arboriculture, Tehsil Qasur, District Council, Lahore on the 10th of September 1955. He was promoted as Superintendent Arboriculture, District Lahore on the 9th of April 1960, and was subsequently confirmed in the post. In July 1967 he was declared a surplus and was directed to revert to the District Council. On the 10th August 1967, he was appointed as Secretary, Town Committee, Shahkot, in Class II (Junior) Cadre of Local Council Service against a vacant post. As a result of several representations made by him for being absorbed in Class II (Senior) Cadre, the petitioner was appointed as Taxation Officer, Municipal Committee, Multan a Class II (Senior) Cadre in the Local Council Service but without its pay scale. However, on the 17th of February 1969, the Local Government Board allowed the petitioner to draw provisionally pay in the scale of Class II (Senior) Cadre of Local Council Service. On the 7th November 1970, the impugned order was passed withdrawing the aforesaid order of the 17th February 1969 and reverting the petitioner to Class II (Junior) Grade of Local Council Service.

It is apparent from the foregoing that the petitioner was only provisionally permitted to draw pay in the scale of Class It (Senior) pending final decision about his absorption in the Local Council Service and therefore, the withdrawal of the provisional order does not amount to reduction in rank. In the case of Pakistan v. Hikmat Hussain (PL D 1959 S C (Pak.) 107) this Court held that an officiation appointment gave the appointee no vested right and if the Government subsequently thought it fit to appoint him to another post not lower than the one he was holding before the officiating appointment, he was not reduced in rank and had no grievance.

In any event it being not a breach of the terms and conditions relating to remuneration or age fixed for superannuation, no petition under Article 98 of the Constitution lay before the High Court. Furthermore, it can hardly be said that the petitioner V' who is in the service of the Local Council is holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Centre or of a Province, as C Punjab contemplated under Article 177 of the Constitution, so as to' require that he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showings cause against the action proposed to be taken with respect to him.

So far as the question of mala fides is concerned, the learned Judges of the High Court very appropriately refrained from expressing any opinion as the enquiry against the petitioner was still pending.

There is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly, dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.