Abdul Bari Khadim V. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and 3 others,
Bench: Syeda Tahira Safdar
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a retired government employee, Abdul Bari Khadim, who had worked in Balochistan's Education Department since 1986 and retired in 2012. He also served as a Project Director in an education project and claimed he was owed reimbursement for various expenses. After retiring, he filed a departmental appeal in September 2012 seeking recovery of his salary and other dues, but the appeal remained undecided for years. He did not file an appeal before the Balochistan Service Tribunal within the required 120-day limitation period, for reasons he did not fully explain.
Instead, he approached the Balochistan High Court through a constitutional petition, asking it to direct the authorities to decide his pending departmental appeal, so that he could then potentially pursue a service appeal before the Tribunal. The government's lawyer argued that since the limitation period for filing before the Tribunal had already expired, no relief should be granted.
The High Court decided not to examine the deeper legal question of whether the petition was valid given the limitation issue, or whether the petitioner still had a right to approach the Service Tribunal. It left that question for the Tribunal itself to decide, since that was the proper forum for service-related disputes. The Court simply ordered the concerned authority to decide the petitioner's pending departmental appeal within one month.
This judgment matters because it shows courts sometimes issue narrow, practical orders (compelling a decision on a pending appeal) without ruling on broader legal questions, leaving those for the specialized tribunal meant to handle civil service disputes.
یہ مقدمہ عبدالباری خادم نامی ایک ریٹائرڈ سرکاری ملازم سے متعلق ہے جو 1986 سے بلوچستان کے محکمہ تعلیم میں ملازمت کرتے رہے اور 2012 میں ریٹائر ہوئے۔ انہوں نے ایک تعلیمی منصوبے میں پراجیکٹ ڈائریکٹر کے طور پر بھی خدمات انجام دیں اور ان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ مختلف اخراجات کی مد میں ان کی واجب الادا رقوم کی ادائیگی نہیں کی گئی۔ ریٹائرمنٹ کے بعد، انہوں نے ستمبر 2012 میں اپنی تنخواہ اور دیگر واجبات کی وصولی کے لیے محکمانہ اپیل دائر کی، مگر یہ اپیل کئی سال تک زیر التوا رہی اور اس پر کوئی فیصلہ نہ ہو سکا۔ انہوں نے مقررہ 120 دن کی مدت کے اندر بلوچستان سروس ٹریبونل میں اپیل دائر نہیں کی، جس کی وجہ انہوں نے مکمل طور پر واضح نہیں کی۔
اس کے بجائے، انہوں نے بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ سے آئینی درخواست کے ذریعے رجوع کیا اور استدعا کی کہ حکام کو ہدایت دی جائے کہ وہ ان کی زیر التوا محکمانہ اپیل پر فیصلہ کریں، تاکہ وہ بعد ازاں
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2016 P L C (C.S.) 177
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, Actg. C.J., and Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, J
ABDUL BARI KHADIM
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and 3 others
C.P. No.411 of 2014, decided on 15th August, 2015.
Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 199 ---Constitutional petition ---Civil service ---Petitioner sought direction for disposal of departmental appeal ---Validity ---Without discussing merits of the case and recording findings on maintainability of constitutional petition, High Court observed that such issue should be left for decision of Service Tribunal which was the relevant forum ---High Court directed the competent authority to decide appeal of employee pending before it wi thin a specified period --- Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Haji Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh 1982 SCMR 582 rel.
Muhammad Aslam Chishti for Petitioner.
Zahoor Ahmed Asstt. A. -G. Balochistan and Abdul Hakim Assistant Director Edu cation for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th August, 2015.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. --- Through this instant petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate direction to the Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan, or in alternate a direction to the competent authority to decide the appeal preferred by him to enable him to approach The Balochistan Service Tribunal by filing a Service Appeal for recovery of his salary, other perks and reimbursements.
2. His (petitioner's) case was with the facts that he was an employee of the Education Department since 1986, and retired from the services on superannuation on 19th October, 2012. While during the period he was also appointed as Project Director in Balochistan Middle Level Education Project. Further, he (petitioner) claimed himself to be entitled for the amount spent on different heads. Relief was claimed in the terms as narrated in para No.1 of the order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that due to some reasons the petitioner was refrained from filing of appeal before the Service Tribunal, while the departmental appeal was filed within the stipulated period, which was still pending, thus needs a decision. The learned counsel addressed maintainabilit y of the instant petition while contending that no relief pertaining to terms and conditions of service was prayed; rather only issuance a direction for decision of his appeal before the departmental authority would redress his grievance. It was asserted t hat a constitutional petition could be filed for an order of the nature, to provide a space to a retired civil servant for redressal of his grievance. He referred to the judgment in case "Haji Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh, reported in 1982 SCMR 582" to a ddress the point of limitation for filing of a service appeal before a Service Tribunal.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate -General (A.A. -G.) was of the view that the stipulated period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal had already been laps ed, therefore, the relief claimed could not be allowed.
5. The petition though filed with the facts of service record of the petitioner, and on his retirement, the process of payment of his salaries, and other amount was delayed, and despite filing of ap peal matter was not finalized. The fact further apparent that on filing of the departmental appeal in 2012 the petitioner opted not to file appeal before the Service Tribunal within the stipulated period of 120 days as required by section 4 The Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974 for the reasons known to him. The instant petition was filed only for the purpose to obtain an order from this court with a direction to the competent authority in his case to decide the appeal pending since 29th September, 2012 . Though the learned Assistant Advocate -General objected the relief while contending that the petitioner had lost his right for filing appeal before the Service Tribunal for lapse of time which makes his claim time -barred.
6. The point of limitation thou gh agitated by both the counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Advocate -General, but as the only effective order prayed in the petition pertains to issuance of a direction to the concerned authority for making a decision on appeal pending before it, thus there is no need to go into merit of the case and record findings on maintainability of the petition with reference to the provisions containing the stipulated period for filing of a appeal before the Service Tribunal. This issue left for decision of the Service Tribunal, the relevant forum.
In view of what has been narrated in the preceding paras the petition is allowed. The competent authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner, pending before the authority, within a period of one m onth positively.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
ZC/96/Bal. Petition disposed of.