Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. (, ), heard on 24th January, 1981.
- Art. 185(3)-Contention raised by petitioner relating to nature and scope of jurisdiction exercised by Services Tribunal requiring consideration in light of other grounds raised in petition-Leave to appeal granted to consider same, in circumstances.
M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another P L D 1980 S C 22 and Mian Amanul Mulk v. N: W. F. P. through Chief Secretary P L D 1981 Pesh. 1 ref.
Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 24th January, 1981.
.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 11th of October, 1980, by which his Appeal No. 37 (K) of 1980 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was inducted in the service of the Postal Department as a clerk on 24th of November, 1952, and by order dated 8th of April 1980, be was retired from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension under section 13 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 by the Postmaster-General, Southern Circle, Karachi. He sent a written representa tion to the Director-General, Post Offices, on 26th of April, 1980, which was treated as an appeal and rejected by order dated 28th of June, J980. He next filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad but did not succeed as it held that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter and question of the validity of the order of the competent authority retiring a Civil Servant in the public interest under section 13 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
3. The learned counsel challenges this statement of law on the premise that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the questions relating to the terms and conditions of a Civil Servant, and as the retirement of the petitioner from service relates to a term of his service, it should have examined the legality of his retirement.' In support of this contention he relies on M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (P L D 1980 S C 22) and Mian Amanul Mulk v. N.-W. F. P. through Chief Secretary (P L D 1981 Posh, 1).
4. The learned counsel further. contends that the petitioner was not heard by the Director-General, Post Offices, while dismissing his appeal and accordingly, he was denied an opportunity to plead that his retirement was illegal as he had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension on 23rd of November, 1977, when he was not retired but allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation, and that there could not be a second review of his service record. The Tribunal again, by refusing to exercise A jurisdiction, has denied to him this opportunity.
5. The contention raised relates to the nature and the scope of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal which need consideration in the light of the other grounds raised in the petition. Accordingly, leave to appeal granted to the petitioner. The appeal arising out of this petition should b heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any, at an early date.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer