EnglishFrenchPortugueseRussianUrdu

2001 S C M R 863

 

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

 

Present: Rashid Aziz Khan, Hamid Ali Mirza and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ

 

Mrs. MUSHTAR JEHAN—Petitioner

 

versus

 

Hon’ble PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and 3 others—Respondents

 

Civil Petition No. 194-K of 2000, decided on 27th November, 2000.

 

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-2-2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.54(K) of 1994).

Force Commander ASF v. Muhammad Rashid 1996 SCMR 1614; Gul Muhammad v. Force Commander 1999 SCMR 2935; Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt 1993 SCMR 1 and Tarab Arif Fatimi v. President of Pakistan PLI) 1994 SC 562 ref.

 

Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Ahmedullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

 

Respondent No.4 in person.

 

Date of hearing: 27th November, 2000.

 

ORDER

 

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J:—This civil petition for leave to, appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-2-2000 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner Mrs. Mushtar Jehan was dismissed on the ground that the said -Tribunal has. no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in view of section 7-A(4) of Airports Security Force Act, 1975.

 

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant provisions of section 7-A(4) of Airports Security Force Act, 1075

 

3. In Force Commander ASF v.. Muhammad Rashid (1996 SCMR 1614), this Court has observed at page 1642:

 

“The cumulative effect of the above provisions read with subsection (4) of section 7-A inter alia hereinbelow seems to be that the Service Tribunal has ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of the employees of A.S. F.”

 

In Gul Muhammad v. Force Commander (1999 SCMR 2935), this Court has observed at page 2938:

 

“…after addition of subsection (4) in section 7-A, the Service Tribunal has ceased to have jurisdiction in matters of discipline in case of officers of the Airports Security Force if grievance is raised by them in respect of an order passed by any officer of the said Force who is authorised under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952…”

 

In Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt (1993 SCMR 1), this Court has observed:

 

“There is absolutely no dispute about the fact that in the Airports Security Force there are officers and members who are civilians and have been appointed through Federal Public Service Commission and they are to be treated as holding civil posts in connection with affairs of Federation even if they are serving in the Ministry of Defence and have been subjected to Pakistan Army Act for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings only. If such officer or member is aggrieved against an order in disciplinary proceedings, which are taken in hand as departmental proceedings and is dismissed or removed from service, he cannot be shut out from pursuing his remedy in the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground that he is no more a civil servant just because he has been subjected to Pakistan Army Act in disciplinary matters only.”

 

In Tarab Arif Fatimi v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 562) this Court, following the views expressed in Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt (1993 SCMR 1), allowed the appeals and remanded the case to the Tribunal with direction to decide the appeals on merits.

 

4. In the above-cited judgments of this Court conflicting views have been taken with regard to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal in disciplinary matters of the officials of Airports Security Force in view of Section 7-A(4) of Airports Security Force Act, 1975. In order to resolve the above controversy we grant leave to appeal to consider whether in view of the provisions of section 7-A(4) of Airports Security Force Act, 1975, Federal Service Tribunal is completely barred from hearing the appeals of the Airports Security Force personnel?

 

Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-220/S Leave granted.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email