Find a Lawyer

Case No. 639 of 1980, decided on 30th June, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 2(b) & 4‑Employee of Faisalabad Development Authority- Not a civil servant ‑ Cannot maintain appeal before Tribunal.

Yaseen Khan Wattoo for Appellant.

Abdul Qadeer for Respondent.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for the State.

In case of Mr. Khalid Parviz, ex‑Security Officer (Estate Officer), Faisalabad Development Authority, Faisalabad, has impleaded, Director‑General, F. D. A. Faisalabad and WASA, F.D.A., through its Managing Director as respondents.

2. The issue, before us for adjudication is whether the appellant would be a civil servant for the purpose of Punjab Service Tribunals Act or an employee simpliciter of the Faisalabad Development Authority.

3. Lengthy arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel of appellant Mr. Yasin Khan Wattoo as well as learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Abdul Qadeer. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on two documents in support of his contention, one is letter from Director A & C, Faisalabad Development Authority in the name of appellant dated 24‑2‑1980, in which he said that he was directed to resume duty immediately otherwise he would be declared a deserter and severe action under (E & D) Rules, 1975 would be taken' against him including imposition of major penalty. He has further produced before us Photo stat copy of notification without date which according to the learned counsel for appellant has been issued by the F. D. A. and according to rule 22 in Part V of the said notification the F. D. A. itself accepted the applicability of (E & D) Rules of 1975 to his employees. In this way the learned counsel tried to persuade us that appellant for all purposes is civil servant, a fact which has been conceded by the F. D. A., itself in the letter as well as in the notification.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has submitted as far as the letter so relied upon is concerned h: would say that the same cannot be taken as estoppel against juristic body even if it is conceded that the same is genuine one. He has further submitted that the rules which have been placed on the record today do not exist and he can make a positive statement to the effect that so far no rules have been framed or approved for the F. D. A. as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel has further relied upon two judgments of the High Court, one a Single Bench judgment and other Division Bench Judgment in I.C.A. He has read out the judgment before us to show that the learned Judges of the High Court have declared the appellant as contract employee only. The learned counsel further referred to the statement of the appellant in the said writ petition where it was conceded that no rules have ever been framed by the Faisalabad Develop ment Authority, to bring its employees within the ambit of Civil Servants (E& D) Rules, 1975.

We have given our anxious thoughts to the contention so raised before us and find that keeping into consideration the categorical statement of respondent's counsel, which he claims to have been made with full responsi bility so mentioned in the earlier part of judgment, coupled with the verdict of Judges of Lahore High Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant is not a civil servant.

In view of above, we hold that present appeal before us is not main tainable for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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