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.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.