JURISDICTIONOFHIGHCOURTSINSERVICEMATTERS

By:
NOORALAMKHANASC,
MemberKPBarCouncil,Peshawar
MemberExecutiveSCBAofPakistan
Chairman
VoiceofPrisoners
AsprovidedinArticle240oftheConstitution,theparliamentpassedanActin1973,calledasCivil
ServantsAct1973,toregulatetheappointmentofpersonsto,andthetermsandconditionsofServiceof
personsin,theserviceofPakistan.TheParliamenthasalsopassedanActunderArticle212ofthe
Constitution,titledastheServiceTribunalsAct,1973toprovidefortheestablishmentofServiceTribunals
toexercisejurisdictioninrespectofmattersrelatingtothetermsandconditionsofserviceofcivilservants.
Sofarasprovincialservicesareconcerned,thelegislaturesofeachProvincehavealsoenactedtheirown
lawswithsimilarnameandstyleofFederallawswithsomeminutechangeswherevertheyfeltdeem
necessary.Art.212oftheConstitutionisreproducedas:
212.
AdministrativeCourtsandTribunals.(1)Notwithstandinganythinghereinbefore
containedtheappropriateLegislaturemaybyAct[providefortheestablishmentof]oneormore
AdministrativeCourtsorTribunalstoexerciseexclusivejurisdictioninrespectof
(a)
mattersrelatingtothetermsandconditionsofpersons[whoareorhavebeen]intheserviceof
Pakistan,includingdisciplinarymatters;
(b)
mattersrelatingtoclaimsarisingfromtortiousactsofGovernment,oranypersonintheserviceof
Pakistan,orofanylocalorotherauthorityempoweredbylawtolevyanytaxorcessandanyservantof
suchauthorityactinginthedischargeofhisdutiesassuchservant;or
(c)
mattersrelatingtotheacquisition,administrationanddisposalofanypropertywhichisdeemedto
beenemypropertyunderanylaw.
(2)
Notwithstandinganythinghereinbeforecontained,whereanyAdministrativeCourtor
Tribunalisestablishedunderclause(1),noothercourtshallgrantaninjunction,makeanyorder
orentertainanyproceedingsinrespectofanymattertowhichthejurisdictionofsuch
AdministrativeCourtorTribunalextends[andallproceedingsinrespectofanysuchmatterwhich
maybependingbeforesuchothercourtimmediatelybeforetheestablishmentofthe
AdministrativeCourtorTribunal[;otherthananappealpendingbeforetheSupremeCourt,]shall
abateonsuchestablishment]:
ProvidedthattheprovisionsofthisclauseshallnotapplytoanAdministrativeCourtor
TribunalestablishedunderanActofaProvincialAssemblyunless,attherequestofthat
Assemblymadeintheformofaresolution,MajliseShoora(Parliament)bylawextendsthe
provisionstosuchaCourtorTribunal.
(3)
AnappealtotheSupremeCourtfromajudgment,decree,orderorsentenceofan
AdministrativeCourtorTribunalshalllieonlyiftheSupremeCourt,beingsatisfiedthatthecase
involvesasubstantialquestionoflawofpublicimportance,grantsleavetoappeal.
FundamentalprinciplewhichisenunciablefromS.3(2)ofCivilServantsAct,1973,isthatthesamehold
outaguaranteetoallcivilservantsthatnoactioncouldeverbetakenwhichcouldadverselyaffectterms

andconditionsoftheirservicee.g.tenureoftheiremployment;payandgradeearnedbythemthrough
yearsoflabourandhardwork;righttopromotionincludinglegitimateexpectancyoffutureadvancement
intheirrespectivecareers;retirementbenefitssuchaspension,gratuityandprovidentfundetc.andall
othertermsandconditionswhichwereprescribedbychapterIIofCivilServantsAct,1973,andbyother
laws,rulesandregulationsrelatingtothesubject.1[1]
Ifacivilservantaggrievedbyafinalorder,whetheroriginalorappellate,passedbyadepartmental
authorityinrespectofanyofhistermsandconditionsofhisservice.theremedy,ifany,isbywayofan
appealbeforetheServiceTribunalnottheHighCourt.Whiledealingwithmaintainabilityofconstitutional
petitionbyacivilservantrelatingtotermsandconditionsofhisservice,itissettledthattheexclusive
jurisdictiontodecidethesamevestedintheServiceTribunalandnottheconstitutionalcourt. 2[2]
ThepurposeofthisarticleistogiveyouinformationrelatingtothejurisdictionofHighCourtinservice
matterwiththehelpofcaselawsandbydiscussingeachandeverytermsandconditionofcivilservants.
Appointment
AppointmentstopostsaretobemadebycompetentauthorityunderCivilServantsAct,1973andtherules
madethereunder.Appointmentshouldbemadeinprescribedmanner.1992SCMR468(d)+1993PLC
(C.S)39+PLD1990SC1013+2001PLC(C.S)400,167andstrictlyonmerits.NLR2000TD40+2000
PLC(C.S)373+PLD1999SC484.Therearetwothingsnecessaryforanappointmentagainstapost,
whichisEligibilityandFitness.Thequestionofeligibilitytobeconsideredforappointmentorpromotion
toapostrelatedtothetermsandconditionsofserviceandthatjurisdictionofHighCourtunderArticle199
oftheConstitutionisousted.1997SCMR1154andTribunalhasthejurisdictiontoentertainanddecide
appealrelatingtoeligibility.2007SCMR1300.Anyrightdeniedonbasisofeligibilityorotherwisecould
bechallengedbeforeServiceTribunal.2005SCMR695+PLD1996SC222.Norightofappealis
providedtoacivilservantagainstorderofdepartmentalauthoritydeterminingfitnessorotherwiseofa
persontobeappointedorholdaparticularpostortobepromotedtoahigherpostorgrade.2011
SCMR265.ServicesTribunalhasnojurisdictioninsuchmatter.2001SCMR1446+2000PLC(CS)1177
+2004PLC(C.S.)1027.HighCourtcannotsubstituteitsownopinionforappointingauthority/selection
committee.1999PLC(C.S)201Matterrelatingtoappointmentorwithdrawalofappointmentpertainedto
termsandconditionsofServiceandadisputewithregardtheretofellwithintheexclusivejurisdictionof
ServiceTribunal.2002CLC1741+2013SCMR859
Abolitionofpost
Authorityenjoyedplenarypowerstocarryoutorganizationalandadministrativechangeswithin
departmentbycreatingorabolishingpostsaccordingtoimpendingneedsandattendingfactors.Incumbent
uponAuthoritytoshowpreferenceforadjustingpersonswhohavebeenrenderedsurplus,againstavailable
postsinbasicpayscaletowhichCivilServantfell,subjecttofulfillmentofqualificationsandother
conditions.1999SCMR1566.Questionofabolitionofpostmightbewithintheexclusivecompetenceofa
particularauthoritybutifitisusedasadeviceforachievinganobjectnotpermittedbylaw,thenitisa
violationofthetermsandconditionsofemployment.ServiceTribunal,hasexclusivejurisdictiontodeal
withthesame.1990SCMR999+1992PLC(C.S)1157+PLD1991SC514+PLD1985SC195
Absorption

1[1].

2007 SCMR 886.

2[2].

2015 PLC (CS) 215.

SurpluspersonnelofFederalSecurityForceseekingabsorptioninSindhPoliceConstabularyunderpolicy
ofFederalGovernment.OrderofterminationoftheirserviceissuedatbehestofInspector.Generalof
SindhPolicebyCommandantSindhConstabulary.Matterinvolvingtermsandconditionsofservice.Could
beagitatedbeforeServiceTribunal.Impugnedorderallegingbreachoftermsofserviceorviolationof
principlesofnaturaljustice.ConstitutionalpetitionbeforeHighCourt,heldnotcompetent1983PLC(CS)
607
Adhocappointment
Adhocappointmentbyitsverydefinition,isofapersonwhoisalthoughqualified,yethisappointmentis
notinaccordancewiththerules.Civilservants,therefore,couldnotclaimtoberegularappointees,only
requiredtoundertakedepartmentalexaminationandnothingbeyond.HighCourthavingnotgivenfinding
totheeffectthattest,interviewandselectionprocedureisnottheoneprescribedundertherules,avoidance
offormalwrittentest,interviewandprocessofselectioncouldnotbepermitted.Civilservants'grievance
relatedtotermsandconditionsofservicewhichisexclusivelytriablebyServiceTribunal.Judgmentof
HighCourtbeingwithoutjurisdictionissetasideincircumstances.1991SCMR2027.Adhocemployee
wouldacquirenovestedrighttoremaininserviceandhisservicesareliabletobeterminatedthemomenta
regularappointeeischosen.2009PLC(CS)837.Norightcreatedinfavourofappointeewhichcould
preventappointingAuthorityfromretracingtheirstepstakenbythem.Authorityiscompetenttoterminate
servicesofadhocappointeewithoutassigninganyreasonandwithoutshowcausenotice.Constitutional
Petitionagainstsuchterminationofservicesbeingincompetent,deserveddismissal.1989PLC(CS)8.Bar
ascontainedinArticle212,ConstitutionofPakistanwouldapplyifthepetitionerisacivilservantand
matterconcernedthetermsandconditionsofhisservice.terminationofserviceadhocemployees,evenif
unlawful,sinceconcernsthetermsandconditionsoftheirservicetheConstitutionalPetitionunderArticle
199oftheConstitutionofPakistanisbarredinviewofArticle212oftheConstitutionofPakistan.1997
PSC(CS)1168+2005PLC(CS)205
AnnualConfidentialReport(A.C.R.)
TheAnnualConfidentialReport(ACR)isanevaluationreportofaGovernmentservant.Itcontains
specificobservationsregardingcharacter,conduct,integrityandperformanceofaservant.Itrevealsthe
clearpictureofaservanthastobereportedupon,withregardtoamongstothers,hispersonalqualities,
standardofperformance,dealingwithothers,potentialgrowthandhissuitabilityforpromotion,orto
appointtoahigherpostaccordingtoindividualaptitude.Itisanimportantdocument.Itiswrittenwitha
viewtoadjudgetheirperformanceeveryyearintheareasoftheirwork.ThecolumnsofACRsare,
therefore,tobefilledupbytheReportingandCountersigningAuthoritiesinanobjectiveandimpartial
manner.RecordingofadverseremarksinACRofanemployeeisoneofthetermandconditionofhis
service.ServiceTribunalisempoweredtoexaminetheremarks.PLJ1991Tr.C(Service)139+1983PLC
(C.S)400Ifadverseremarkshavebeenrecordedthecivilservantenjoyedarighttoinitiallychallengethe
samebeforethenexthigherauthorityoftheDepartmentonthegroundsavailabletohimincludingtheone
thattheadverseremarkshavebeenrecordedonsubjectivereasonsandifhisgrievanceisnotredressed,
thenthecivilservantcouldapproachtheTribunalforredressalofhisgrievance.ServiceTribunalis
empoaredtoexaminetheremarksonthebasisofavailablematerialandiftheTribunalcametothe
conclusionthatAnnualconfidentialReporthasnotbeenrecordedpropertyoritisbasedonextraneous
considerationortheallegationisnotsupportedbythematerial,thentheTribunaliscompetenttoacceptthe
appeal.2002SCMR870+1984PLC(CS)444+1980PLC(CS)4
Confirmation
HighCourtcouldnotbecompelledtoreinstateorconfirmapersonasreinstatementandconfirmationboth
woulddependonsubjectiveassessmentofparticularincumbent.2004SCMR44.Althoughapersonisfit
forconfirmationasAssistantSubInspectorofPolice.ConstitutionalPetitionisdismissedbytheHigh

CourtinviewofbarcontainedinArticle212oftheConstitution.2004PLC(CS)1277.Termsand
ConditionsofserviceordainedinLaw.NotthosespecifiedinConstitutionitselfandassuchjurisdiction
underArticle98(nowArticle199oftheConstitution)cannotbeinvokedinrespectofsuchmatters.PLD
1970SC279
Correctionofdateofbirth
Ifacivilservantwantedtogetdateofhisbirthchangedalthoughhebeingonvergeofhisretirementifhe
prayerpertainingtoherdateofbirthisgranted,dateofherretirementwouldbeautomaticallychanged.
Suchprayertherefore,directlypertainedtotermsandconditionsofplaintiffascivilservant.Nocourt
includingHighCourthasjurisdictioninrespectoftermsandconditionsofcivilservant.1991MLD824.
2000SCMR1110+1993SCMR1692.Plearaisedwithregardtoagewouldfallwithinjurisdictionof
ServiceTribunal.SuchsuitwouldnotbemaintainableinviewofbarcontainedinArt.212ofthe
Constitution.2004PLC(C.S)1162(Sc)+1999PLC(CS)544
Disciplinarymatters
ServiceTribunalhasexclusivejurisdictioninrespectofmattersrelatingtotermsandconditionsincluding
disciplinarymattersagainstCivilServants.2002SCMR1023+1994PLC(C.S)209+1979SCMR498+
1997SCMR343(b)+PLD1976Quetta59+1993PLC(CS)345+1990PLC(C.S)533+PLD1992Lah.
127(d)+2002PLC(C.S)92,1050,1632+2003PLC(CS)654+2007SCMR1143+2004SCMR492.
AllquestionsoflawandfactscouldbetakenbeforeServiceTribunaliforderispassedbyDepartmental
AuthorityandbarofArticle212,ConstitutionofPakistan(1973)issquarelyattractedtoadisciplinary
matter.2000PLC(CS)145.Orderofremovalofcivilservantischallengedonthegroundsthatthesame
hasbeenpassedmalafide,withoutnoticeofhearingandwithoutJurisdiction.Matterrelatingtotermsand
conditionsofServiceordisciplinarymatterfellwithinthejurisdictionofServiceTribunal.Suchmatters
couldnotbeadjudicateduponbyHighCourtunderArticle199oftheConstitution.1999PLC(CS)1082.
Grievanceofcivilservantisthattheauthoritiesinitiateddisciplinaryproceedingsagainsthimandheis
directedtoproceedonforcedleave.Validity.Notonlythetermsandconditionsofthepersonswhoareor
hasbeeninServiceofPakistanareprovidedinArticle212(1)(a)oftheConstitutionbutitalsoincluded
disciplinarymatters.2005PLC(CS)519.
Leave
GrantofleaveisamatterfallingundertermsandconditionsofCivilServant.Therefore,theTribunalhas
thejurisdiction.HighCourtrefraintoexercisejurisdictioninsuchmatter.1995PLC(C.S)1221Besides,
whenamanentersgovernmentservice,heundertakestoabidebythetermsandconditionsofserviceand
therulesandregulationsgoverninghisservicewhichincludetheLeaveRulesinforceandwhichare
subjecttoamendmentfromtimetotime.SuchisnottosaythoseRules16,17,18,18A&19ofthe
RevisedLeaveRules,1980aregoodandarenotoppressive.SaidRulescouldbebad,unjustoroppressive,
buttheproperforumtoassailthoseisnotFederalShariatCourtasthosedidnotviolateanyInjunctionof
Islam.2009PLC(CS)809
Malafide
ConstitutionalPetitionunderArticle199oftheConstitutionisnotmaintainablebyacivilservantin
relationtoanymatterconnectedwiththetermsandconditionsofhisserviceinrespectwhereoftheService
Tribunalhasjurisdiction.Eventhoseorderschallengedonthegroundofmalafidesbeingappealablebefore
theServiceTribunal1998SCMR1948+2002PLC(CS)57+2010PLC(CS)1200+1999PLC(CS)221
+1999PLC(CS)51.OrderchallengedinConstitutionalJurisdictiononthegroundofmalafides,being

ultraviresandcoramnonjudice.ConstitutionalJurisdictionofHighCourtunderArticle199ofthe
Constitutionstoodexcludedinthematters'relatingtothetermsandconditionsofserviceinviewof
Article212oftheConstitution.1999PLC(CS)1340+1998PLC(CS)1371(SupremeCourt)Pleaofcivil
servantsisthattheyareappointedinrelaxationofban,thus,impugnedordersareillegal,malafide,
violativeofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandwithoutjurisdiction.Suchcontroversywouldfallwithinscope
oftermsandconditionsofservice.IfHighCourtfoundappointmentsofcivilservantstobelegal,thenin
viewofbarcontainedinArticle212(2)oftheConstitution,HighCourtwouldnotbecompetenttogrant
reliefprayedfor.2005PLC(CS)24
Notifications
Governmentorder(notification)isadmittedlybeyondthejurisdictionofHighCourt.Otherreliefsclaimed
inConstitutionalPetitiontovestHighCourtwithjurisdictionareonlycorollaryofthenotificationofthe
Government.IfHighCourthasnopowertoquashtheGovernmentnotificationrelatingtotermsand
conditionsofserviceofcivilservantsitcouldnotissueanywritofprohibitionrestrainingGovernment
fromamendingrulesofservice.Whatisnotallowedtobedonedirectlycouldnotbedoneindirectly.
ConstitutionalPetitionfiledbeforeHighCourtisthusbarred.1994MLD632.Mattersrelatingto
examiningthevalidityofServiceRulesandNotificationsandthefitnessofcivilservanttopromotionto
HigherpostpreeminentlyfallwithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheServiceTribunalandHighCourt
wouldwronglyassumejurisdictioninsuchacase.PLD1997SC351+PLD1994SupremeCourt539
NotificationchallengedbypetitionerinConstitutionalPetitionhaslaiddowntermsandconditionsof
recruitmentandpromotionofthecivilservantswhichrelatedtotermsandconditionsofservice.Petitioner,
incircumstances,isprecludedfrominvokingJurisdictionofHighCourt2003PLC(CS)1110
Departmentalinstructions
InstructionsissuedbyCompetentAuthorityactasforceoflaw/rules.2003PLC(CS)1468+2000PLC
(C.S)231+1987PLC(C.S)647+1984CLC1331+1986PLC(CS)664+1989PLC(CS)738+PLD
2000L1+PLD1961SC105+PLD1974SC291+PLD1973SC144+PLD1964SC21+1999YLR
855+1990SCMR1618.Departmentalinstructionsbecomeenforceableinservicematter.PLD1990SC
612.IftheinstructionsarenotfollowedbytheCompetentDepartmentalAuthority,thepropercoursefor
theCivilServantistoapproachtheappropriateServiceTribunalinsteadofcomingtotheHighCourt
throughConstitutionalPetition.1999SCMR784ConstitutionalPetitionintermsofArt.199ofthe
Constitutionisnotmaintainableincircumstances.1998PLC(CS)49.ServiceTribunalasappellate
authorityenjoyedJurisdictiontomodifysentence(awardedbyDepartmentalauthorities)andintheabsence
ofanyquestionofpublicimportanceitwouldnotproperfortheSupremeCourttointerfereintheorderof
ServiceTribunal.2013SCMR572
Policymatters
HighCourthasonlyjurisdictiontointerpretthelaw,buthasnojurisdictiontotaketheroleofpolicy
maker.ConstitutionalpetitionwouldnotbemaintainabletochallengepoliciesofGovernment.2003YLR
435+PLD2001Lah.506+PLD1997Pesh.5+2003CLC319+2002CLC147+2006SCMR1427+
NLR1995TD384+1999MLD3397+NLR2005CLJ91+NLR2005CLJ226&2011SCMR1864.
HighCourtalsohasnojurisdictiontodirectpolicymakertocorrectthepolicyaccordingtothe
convenienceofcandidates.2008PLC(CS)1012Nobodycouldclaimanyvestedrightinapolicy.1987
SCMR302+1989SCMR407+2002SCMR772(c)+PLD1995SC701+PLD1996SC197.
GovernmentisalwaysempoweredtochangepromotionpolicyanddomainofGovernmenttoprescribe
qualificationforaparticularpostthroughamendmentinrelevantrulesisnotchallengeable.2006SCMR
1427.PolicymattersoftheGovernmentcouldnotbeassailedorchallengedintheconstitutional
jurisdictionunlessthoseareprovedtohavebeenframedorformulatedagainstthefundamentalandbasic
provisionsoftheConstitution.PLD2006Lahore482.

Pay
ConstitutionalPetitionsarenotmaintainableasfixationofpayandallowancessquarelyfellwithinthe
domainoftermsandconditionsofacivilservant.HighCourtinexerciseofConstitutionaljurisdiction
declinedtointerfereinthematter.2011PLC(CS)231+1992SCMR1341.Reliefinthematterof
enforcementofsuchtermsandconditionsisprovidedintheServiceTribunalsAct,1974.Suchrequirement
beingsatisfied,JurisdictionofcivilCourtunderArticle212oftheConstitutionstoodcompletelyexcluded.
1994SCMR1263.
Matterrelatingtosalaryofcivilservantshavingadirectnexuswiththetermsandconditionsofserviceof
theemployees,objectiontothejurisdictionoftheHighCourttoentertainaConstitutionalpetitionisnot
technicalinnaturebutgoingtotheveryrootofthecase.ServiceTribunalaloneistheappropriateforum
havingjurisdictiontodealwithmattersrelatingtothetermsandconditionsofcivilservantsinviewofthe
barcontainedinArticle212oftheConstitution..PLD2001SC1032+1989PLC(CS)7.
Postingandtransfer
Questionofpostingandtransferofagovernmentservantsquarelyfallswithinthejurisdictionaldomainof
competentauthority,subjecttolawandrulesmadetherefore,questionofposting/transferrelatestoterms
andconditionsofagovernmentservant,ServiceTribunal,therefore,hastheexclusiveJurisdictiontodilate
uponanddecidesuchmatters.ConstitutionalJurisdictionofHighCourtcannotbeinvokedtogetsuch
controversiesresolved.2007SCMR541992SCMR365,1843,1213+1998SCMR219,245+PLD1960
SC105+2000PLC(C.S)1369,1040,426,1554+2002PLC(C.S)324,1037,675+2005SCMR890+
2012PLC(CS)606+2012PLC(CS)323+2012PLC(CS)489.
Deputation
Civilservanthasnovestedrighttocompletedeputationperiodandthematterisrelatingtotermsand
conditionsofservice.ConstitutionaljurisdictionasconferreduponHighCourtunderArt.199ofthe
Constitutioncannotbeinvoked.2010SCMR378
Deputationistthroughconstitutionalpetitioncouldnotclaimpermanentabsorptioninborrowing
departmentasitwastheprerogativeofborrowingdepartmenttodeterminetenureofdeputation,to
revert/returndeputationistortoabsorbadeputationistpermanently.Determinationwhetherornot
petitionerlawfullystoodpermanentlyabsorbedinborrowingdepartmentwasthematterpertainedtoterms
andconditionsofserviceofpetitioner,therefore,Art.212oftheConstitutionwouldcomeintoplayousting
jurisdictionofHighCourttoentertainandadjudicateuponthematter2012PLC(CS)54
Grantofdeputationallowancehasdirectnexuswithtermsandconditionsofservice.JurisdictionofHigh
CourtisbarredunderArt.212oftheConstitution.HighCourtdismissedconstitutionalpetitionin
circumstances.2013PLC(C.S.)391
ProbationandProbationers
HighCourtdismissedcivilservantsConstitutionalPetitionagainstterminationoftheirservicesduring
probationaryperiodonthegroundthatsuchmatterbeingrelatedtotermsandconditionsofserviceofcivil
servants,JurisdictionofHighCourtisbarredunderArticle212oftheConstitution.Validity.HighCourts
judgmentthatitlackedjurisdictionisnotshowntobesufferingfromanyinfirmityinlaw.1998SCMR
749.Probationers,therefore,onhavingcompletedtheperiodof2yearsofprobationsuccessfullywouldbe
deemedtohaveattainedthestatusofcivilservantsforthepurposeofS.2A,ServiceTribunalsAct,1973,
conferringtherebyjurisdictionupontheServiceTribunaltograntthemreliefunderS.4,ServiceTribunals

Act,1973.PLD2003SC724.Terminationofserviceofpetitionerduringprobationperiodisduly
warrantedbylawandheisnotentitledforanyrelieffromHighCourt.2010PLC(CS)856
Promotion
Threerulesthingsaretobeseenwhileconsideringacaseofpromotion;thefirstruleisthat;isitapartof
selectionorofsenioritycumfitnessorofseniorityalone;secondis,wherethepromotionistotakeplace
bysenioritycumfitness,thequestionwouldnecessarilybeassignmentofthecorrectseniorityand
proceedingstodeterminetheentitlementofpromotiononitsbasisandthirdquestionnecessarilywouldbe
afitnessforpromotion.Principlesofpromotionandtheassignmentofproperseniorityforconsideration
forpromotionarematterswhichdidnotstandexcludedfromthejurisdictionoftheServiceTribunal,
becausethosedidnotinvolvethequestionoffitnesswhichhasbeenexpresslyreservedfordepartmental
AuthorityandareoutsidethejurisdictionoftheTribunal.Distinctionisdrawnbetweenthequestionof
fitnessofacivilservantforpromotionandquestionofeligibilitytopromotion.jurisdictionofService
Tribunalisbarredwherethequestionoffitnessofacivilservantforpromotionisinvolved.Determination
ofeligibility,isaquestiononwhichjurisdictionoftheServiceTribunalhasnotbeenbarred.2010PLC
(CS)165.Thequestionofeligibilityrelatesprimarilytothetermsandconditionsoftheserviceandtheir
applicabilitytothecivilservantconcerned,and,therefore,theTribunalhasjurisdictionandnottheHigh
Court1998PLC(CS)901+1997SCMR1154+PLD1997SC351+1998SCMR2058+PLD1996SC
222+2012PLC(CS)1104(SC).Andwhereasthequestionoffitnessisasubjectiveevaluationonthebasis
ofobjectivecriteriawheresubstitutionforanopinionofthecompetentauthorityisnotpossiblebythatofa
TribunalorofaCourtand,therefore,theTribunalhasnojurisdictiononthequestionoffitness.PLD1994
SupremeCourt539+PLJ1997Tr.C(Service)264+PLJ1994Tr.C188+1998PLC(C.S)180,1175+
PLD1997SC382&351+2002SCMR1056+2005SCMR695+2003SCMR1191+2002PLC(CS)
1002+2007SCMR682+2006PLC(CS)1014+2010PLC(CS)165.Questionofsuitabilityandfitness
forpromotioniswithintheexclusivedomainoftheGovernment/Authority.2001PLC(C.S)157+2001
SCMR1446+1999SCMR1605+2000SCMR1056+1992SCMR1869or1669+2000PLC(C.S)563,
157+2002SCMR1056&574+PLD2003SC110+2003PLC(CS)212,1048,1110.
Whenacivilservantiseligibleforpromotionbutisignoredandothereligiblepersonispromotedthenhis
appealbeforetheServiceTribunalwouldbecompetent,whileinthepresentcase,appellant(aggrieved
civilservant)failedtoshowthatthepromotedcivilservantisineligibleforpromotion.ServiceTribunal,in
circumstancesrightlydeclinedtointerfere.PLD2008SC769.
Regularization
Contractemployeeshasnorighttoinvokeconstitutionaljurisdiction.wheretheirservicesareterminated
oncompletionofperiodofcontract.Asallrespondentsarecoveredunderthedefinitionofworkman,they
areentitledtoonemonth'snoticeorsalaryinlieuthereof,aspermissibletothemundertheruleofmaster
andservant.SupremeCourtsetasidethejudgmentpassedbyHighCourtinfavourofcontractemployees
ofPakistanTelecommunicationCorporationLimited.Appealisallowed.PLD2011SC132.Government
hastheprerogativetoformulatepolicyofrecruitmentinaccordancewithlawandConstitution.Nolegalor
vestedrightofthepetitionersislikelytobeinfringedduetoregularizationofthecontractemployees,they
hasnogroundtoinvoketheconstitutionaljurisdictionofHighCourt.Petitioners,beingcivilservants,if
apprehendedanythreattotermsandconditionsoftheirservices,arebarredunderArt.212ofthe
ConstitutiontoapproachtheHighCourtunderitsconstitutionaljurisdiction.2012PLC(CS)286+2005
PLC(CS)205.Merecontinuanceofemploymentofatemporaryemployeefortwoyearsormoreinservice
didnotipsofactoconverttheappointmentpermantone.PLJ2005SC821Andemployee
appointed/engagedoncontract/parttimebasishasgotnotvestedrighttoclaimforbeing
absorbed/appointedonregular/permanentbasis.2007PLC(CS)737(SupremeCourt)
Reinstatement

MatterrelatingtoreinstatementofCivilServantisoneoftermsandconditionsofserviceanddisputeabout
suchmattersfellwithinexclusivejurisdictionofServicesTribunal.JurisdictionoftheHighCourtisbarred
insuchmattersbyexpressprovisionsofArticle212(2)ofConstitutionofPakistan(1973).Services
Tribunalhasexclusivejurisdictioninthematter.1999SCMR650+1982SCMR1047+1998PLC(CS)
734.
Resignation
ResignationisatermandconditionofServiceContentionthatresignationnotbeingspecificallydealtwith
inCivilServantsActorServiceTribunalsActassuchnotamatteraffectingtermsandconditionsof
ServiceofacivilservantandHighCourtunderConstitutionaljurisdictioncanproceedwithmatter.
Contention,held,notcorrectasresignationwhichbringstoanend,employmentofaperson,relatestoand
concernedwithtermsandconditionsofemploymentandmerefactthatithasnotbeen,specificallydealt
withbystatuteorrulesframedthereunder,wouldnotsuffice.1983PLC(CS)527.WhenaCivilservant,
havinghimselftenderedresignationwhichhasbeenacceptedbycompetentAuthority,couldnotrecallthe
sameaftermorethanoneyear.ServiceTribunalhasdealtwithalltheaspectsofthecase.Nopointoflaw
ofpublicimportancebeinginvolvedinpetition,leavetoappealisrefused.1991SCMR440
Retirement
PersonhavingretiredfromServicewouldfallwithinpurviewofdefinitionof'civilservant'Act;andis
competenttoinvokethejurisdictionofServiceTribunalforredressalofanygrievancerelatingtotheterms
andconditionsofhisService.2011PLC(CS)945+2006PLC(CS)876+2004SCMR107
Pension
ItisnowwellsettledpropositionoflawthatapersonwhoentersinGovernmentservicehasalso
somethingtolookforwardafterhisretirement,towhatarecalledretirementbenefits,grantofpension
beingthemostvaluableofsuchbenefits.[NLR2005ServiceLah.52]Aretiredpersoncouldnotbe
claimedthebenefitofnewpensionscheme.1999PLC(C.S)5Pensionhastobedeterminedonthebasisof
qualifyingserviceandnotonthebasisoftotallengthofservice.NLR1991CLJ706.Nongrantingof
pensionarybenefitstoretiredArmyOfficerfornoncompletingtenureof10yearscivilservice.Such
matterpurelyrelatedtotermsandconditionsofhisservice.Properforumforredressalofsuchgrievanceis
ServiceTribunalnottheOmbudsman.2007SCMR1313.
Seniority
ACivilservantwhohasbeenwrongfullydeniedhisrightfulseniorityinserviceisentitledtoseekredress
beforetheServiceTribunalinproperlyinstitutedproceedings.JurisdictionofHighCourtisbarred.1994
SCMR759+1997PLC(C.S)216,114,211+1995PLC(C.S)1151+1994PLC(C.S)1607,569+NLR
1996TDService316+1999PLC(C.S)349+1998SCMR969+2009PLC(CS)83.Whenacivilservant
isaggrievedoffixationofseniorityremedyagainstsenioritylistisrepresentation/appealtocompetent
authorityandCompetentAuthoritypassedanorderreviewingthesenioritylist,againstwhichorderlaw
providesaremedybywayoffilingappealbeforeServiceTribunal.2010PLC(CS)563.Whenacivil
servantinhispetitionsoughtdeterminationofhisseniority.Suchmattersarealsocouldnotbeadjudicated
bytheHighCourtinexerciseofitsConstitutionaljurisdiction.2001PLC(CS)1239.DirectionofHigh
Courtwherebydisputeofsenioritybetweenpartiesisvirtuallydecided,aresetasidebySupremeCourtin
appealagainstholdingthatcasefellwithinjurisdictionalcompetenceofServiceTribunalandoutsiderealm

ofHighCourt,whileexercisingConstitutionaljurisdiction.1999PLC(CS)941.Tentativesenioritylist
evenifmalafide,ultraviresorcoramnonjudicewouldfallwithinambitofjurisdictionofService
Tribunal.Constitutionalpetitionisnotmaintainable.2005PLC(CS)811
Suspension
Suspensionorderorholdingofinquiryagainstcivilservantbeingsteptowardspassingoffinalorder,
Constitutionalpetitionisnotmaintainableagainstsuchinterimorder.Petitioner,incircumstances,could
notchallengeorderofhissuspensioninConstitutionalpetition,hewouldhaveremedytofileappealbefore
theServiceTribunal..2002PLC(CS)816+1990PLC(CS)550+2001PLC(CS)781+2002PLC(CS)
1632.SuspensionofCivilServantfromServicebeingnotseparablefromhistermsandconditionsofthe
Service.2001PLC(CS)781JurisdictionofHighCourtunderArt.199oftheConstitutiontoscrutinizethe
samestandsousted.2001PLC(CS)623Tribunalalonehasthejurisdictiontoadjudicateuponsuchmatter
inappropriateproceedings.JurisdictionofHighCourtinthematterisbarredunderArticle212of
Constitution.2000PLC(CS)118+2001PLC(CS)623.
Tenureofofficeofservantscivil
Whenapersonbelongingtoaparticularserviceorcadreistransferredtoanothercadreorautonomous
body,thesameamountstodeputationandtermsandconditionsofsuchcivilservanthavetobesettled
betweenborrowingandlendingauthority.Tenureofsuchappointmentisalsotermandconditionofservice
aspercivilServantsAct,19732012PLC(CS)54.
NongraftingofpensionarybenefitstoretiredArmyOfficerfornoncompletingtenureof10yearsincivil
service.Petitioneriscivil.servantandsuchmatterpurelyrelatedtotermsandconditionsofhisservice.
ProperforumforredressalofsuchgrievanceisServiceTribunalandnottheOmbudsman.2007SCMR
1313.
Petitioner'sremoval/transferfromofficeofChairman,TextbookBoardbeforeexpiryofhistenureperiod.
Validity.ServiceTribunal.thus,wouldhavejurisdictiontoredressgrievanceofpetitionerintermsoflaw
applicabletohimatcrucialtime.Orderofremoval/transferofpetitionerasChairman.TextbookBoard
would,thus,beappealablebeforeSindhServiceTribunal.jurisdictionofHighCourtisbarredbyArticle
212oftheConstitution.PetitionercouldapproachServiceTribunalforcondonationofdelayinfiling
appealorseekingbenefitofS.14,LimitationAct,1908.1998PSC1385.
Terminationofservice
PetitionerwhoisacivilservantchallengedordersofhisterminationfromserviceinConstitutionalpetition.
OrdersofterminationofservanthavingbeenpassedbyCompetentAuthoritypertainedtotermsand
conditionsofservice.Suchordersevenifaremalafide,couldbedealtwithonlybyServiceTribunal.
ConstitutionalPetitionisdismissed.1999PLC(CS)221+2011PLC(CS)270+2008SCMR314+2004
SCMR521.HighCourtdismissedcivilservantsConstitutionalpetitionagainstterminationoftheir
servicesduringprobationaryperiodonthegroundthatsuchmatterbeingrelatedtotermsandconditionsof
serviceofcivilservants,jurisdictionofHighCourtisbarredunderArticle212oftheConstitution.Leaveto
appealtoSupremeCourtisdeclinedincircumstances.1998SCMR749+2010PLC(CS)1200.
Rules

Governmentiscompetenttoimprove,alteroramendorframetherules.1990SCMR3121+PLD1988SC
155,362+PLD1997SC351+PLD1994SC539(d)+PLD1995SC701+Ifastatutoryruleadversely
affectsthetermsandconditionsofaCivilServant,thesamecanbetreatedasanorderintermsofS.4(1)in
ordertofileanappealbeforetheServiceTribunal.1991SCMR1041(d)+1998SCMR68(d)+PLD1980
SC153+1998PLC(CS)36.InMuhammadZafarBhatticase,amendmentmadebyauthoritiesinrules
regardingpromotionwasassailedbeforeHighCourt.HighCourtdeclaredtheamendmentasultravirusof
thevestedrightsofcivilservants.SupremeCourtholdthattheHighCourthasnojurisdictioninthematter
andjudgmentpassedbyHighCourtwassetaside.PLD2004SC317
StayOrderbyHighCourt
Article212(2)oftheConstitutionprovidesthatnoCourtshallgrantaninjunction,makeanyorderor
entertainanyproceedingsinrespectofanymattertowhichjurisdictionofAdministrativeCourtorTribunal
extends.Whenthedisputeisrelatingtotermsandconditionsofservice,thehighCourtisrequiredtofirst
determinequestionofitsjurisdictionbeforemakinganystayorderinsuchmatter.1997SCMR169+1997
SCMR167+1997SCMR1124.OrdergrantingstatusquobyHighCourt,isvacatedandtheirapplication
forinterimreliefinHighCourt,isdismissed.2001PLC(CS)236HighCourtbeforegrantinginterimstay
orderhavingnotadvertedtoquestionofjurisdictionwithreferencetoprovisionofArt.212ofthe
Constitution,petitionforleavetoappealwasconvertedintoappealandwasallowedwithdirectiontoHigh
Courttopassfreshorderonstayapplicationafterattendingtoanddecidingquestionofitsjurisdictionwith
referencetoprovisionofArt.212oftheConstitution.1998SCMR220.Frequenttransfersofcivilservant
thoughwereHighlyunusual,butthatfactwouldnottakeawayjurisdictionfromServiceTribunal.Even
malafideordercouldbechallengedbeforeServiceTribunal.HighCourtincircumstances,hadfalleninto
errorinadmittingwritpetitiontoregularhearingandalsoissuingstayorder.OrderofHighCourtwasset
asideinappealbySupremeCourt.1999PLC(CS)1252