Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 22(R) of 1985, decided on 3rd December, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Cabinet Division Office Memoranda, dated 2nd May, 1978 and 16th June, 1978‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 240‑‑Employees of Council of Islamic Ideology, status of‑‑Council of Islamic Ideology whether as independent as Parliament etc.‑‑Mere mention of words 'autonomous body', held, does not make the council as a separate entity distinct from the Government‑‑In absence of any provision of the Constitution, Council of Islamic Ideology is not as independent as are the Parliament, Election Commission, Supreme Court and High Courts with regard to whose employees separate provisions exist in the Constitution‑‑Object of office memo. of 2nd May, 1978 was that Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs would not deal with the council in the same manner as it dealt with its subordinate or attached offices‑ Council of Islamic Ideology having no funds of its own, salaries of employees, thereof forming part of Federal Consolidated Fund were being paid through Accountant‑General, Pakistan‑‑Employees of the council having throughout being treated as civil servants, could not be denied that status in absence of proof that such employees had not been serving in connection with affairs of Federation and were not under Rule‑making powers of President‑‑Employee of the Council being civil servant, Federal Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain his appeal.

Muhammad Amir Akbar Khan alongwith Messrs Ali Abid, Qazi Saifur Rehman and Hafiz Abdul Ghaffar for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1986.

‑This order will dispose of a preliminary objection of jurisdiction of this Tribunal raised by learned counsel appearing for respondent Council of Islamic Ideology and others. The learned counsel has taken the plea that the employees of the Council are not civil servants and, therefore, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate in respect of terms and conditions of their employment. Reliance in this respect is placed on the Office Memoranda of 2nd May, 1978 and 16th June, 1978, issued by the Cabinet Division. Both these documents state that the Chief Martial Law Aministrator was pleased to order that the Council of Islamic Ideology will be an autonomous body and its relations with the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs will be conducted on the same pattern as for the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, etc. with the Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The learned counsel argued that since the Council has been given the status of an autonomous body, its employees cannot be held to be civil servants in the same manner in which the employees of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission cannot be so held.

2. The Council of Islamic Ideology or the Islamic Council is constituted under Article 228 of the Constitution. The Council consists of several Members, one of whom is to be appointed as Chairman.‑ The Constitution does not speak of the employees of the Islamic Council. The Election Commission is constituted under Article 212. The Commissioner, in the absence of any Act of Parliament can make rules providing for the appointment of officers and servants of the Commission. Similar provisions exist in respect of the Supreme Court, High Court and the Parliament. It can, therefore, be argued that the employees of the Election Commission, the Supreme Court and the High Courts are not civil servants, because there is no specific provision in the Constitution with regard to their terms and conditions of service, unlike other employees of the Government whose terms and conditions are not provided for by the President or the Governor under Article 240 of the Constitution.

The mere mention of the words 'autonomous body' does not make) I the Council as a separate entity distinct from the Government. As already stated, in the absence of any provision of the Constitution, the Council is not as independent as are the Parliament, the Election Commission, the Supreme Court and the High Courts with regard to whose employees separate provisions exist in the Constitution. The employees of the Council appear to have been treated throughout as civil servants. What the Office memo. of 2nd May, 1978 means to say is that the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs shall not deal with the Islamic Council in the same manner in which it can deal with its attached and subordinate offices. It is pertinent to note that the present appellant had first come up in appeal before us in regard to some other matter and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not challenged at that time. The case is reported as Abdul Jabbar Khan v. Pakistan through Council of Islamic Ideology and others 1984 P L C (CS) 435. From this order, a C.P.L.A. was preferred to the Supreme Court, the same being 95‑R of 1984. In this petition also, the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not raised. It was not denied that the Council of Islamic Ideology has no special funds of its own. It is also not denied that the salary of its employees forms part of the Federal Consolidated Fund and the same is being paid through the Accountant‑General, Pakistan Revenues.

4. It also appears that despite the aforesaid Office memo., the. employees of the Council had throughout been treated as civil servants. Again the Deputy Attorney‑General in a writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court had taken up the plea that the High Court had no jurisdiction, because the appellant is a civil servant any is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. No doubt, at present the Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and the Establishment Division have taken a different stand before us, we do not think that makes any difference, because it has not been established that the employees of the Council had not been serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation and are not under the rule‑making powers of the President.

5. We, in view of the above discussions, hold that the appellant is a civil servant and we have jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. Parties to be informed accordingly. This appeal should now come up for hearing on merits.

A.A./354/ Lb/ S

Find a Lawyer Near You

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