Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 666 of 1987, heard on 31st March, 1987.

‑‑‑S.6‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A) [as added by West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance (XVI of 1975)]‑ WAPDA employees‑‑Status of‑‑Such employees deemed to be civil servant on 30‑9‑1975‑‑Suit against removal from service, held, could not be maintained on coming into force of Ordinancne XVI of 1975‑Remedy available to such employee was to approach Service Tribunal for redress of his grievance.

Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 1981 S C 249 ref.

‑‑S.115‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.6‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A) [as added by West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance (XVI of 1975)]‑‑WAPDA employees‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Order passed by Appellate Court below, not suffering from any legal infirmity or material irregularity, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑Matter of termination of service of petitioner even if it was of extreme hardship for petitioner and his family members, could not be considered by High Court in its limited revisional jurisdiction.

Azam S. Suhrawardy for Petitioner.

Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 31st March, 1987.

Junaid Zaffar, petitioner herein, employed as Junior Clerk under Water and Power Development Authority, was removed from service on 31‑10‑1974 pursuant to inquiry held for allegations of misconduct against him. On 11‑11‑1974 he challenged the aforesaid order by way of a suit. The learned Civil Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order respondent No.1 on 18‑11‑1974 held the order of his removal from service, in abeyance. The respondent No.1, however, assailed order dated 14‑1‑1975 allowing petitioner's application for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide the impugned order dated 5‑5‑1982 dismissed respondent's appeal as well as petitioner's suit as according to him the same had abated. Hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner's suit instituted on 11‑11‑1974 could not have been dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 came into force on 30‑9‑1975 declaring the service under the WAPDA to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under WAPDA not being a person who was on deputation, would be deemed to be Civil Servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973). It was also submitted that under section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act all suits, appeals or applications falling within the jurisdiction of Tribunals pending in any Court stood abated. He relied on Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 1981 S C 249 in support of his contention.

4. Admittedly the petitioner had challenged the final order of his removal from service in the Civil Court. The petitioner became civil servant on 30‑9‑1975 and could not maintain his suit thereafter. The remedy available to him was to approach the Service Tribunal for the relief prayed for by him in the suit. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from no legal infirmity or material irregularity so as to call for interference in revisionall jurisdiction of this Court.

The petitioner has pointed out, that he is continuing in service as the order of his removal from service was held in abeyance on 18‑11‑1974 by the WAPDA. There is no complaint whatsoever about his conduct. It was also submitted that the petitioner joined on 1‑9‑1964 as Junior Clerk and had served WAPDA diligently for a period of over two decades. If he is removed from service at this stage it shall be a case of extreme hardship for him and members of his family.

This Court cannot express any opinion on this aspect of the case, owing to its limited revisional jurisdiction. Nevertheless it is for WAPDA to consider this aspect before recalling order dated 18‑11‑1974 whereby order removing petitioner from service was held in abeyance.

5. Subject to the observation made above this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

A.A. /J‑8/L

Find a Lawyer Near You

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