Case law on Overseas Pakistanis Foundation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1993

PLJ      1999     Supreme Court     984

Present to: AJMAL MIAN, C. J., MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA AND SH. RIAZ AHMED

 MUHAMMAD YAR BUTTAR and 4 others
Versus
BOARD OF GOVERNORS, OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS FOUNDATION, ISLAMBAD and another

 --S. 4--Overseas Pakistanis Foundation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1993~Regulations 3 & 4 and 6.08~Crucial question arising for determination is whether fter the omission of the word final' from S. 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, all orders whatever their nature may be, are appealable or not-If in the light of amendment in . 4 of Service Tribunals Act, appeals were maintainable against all orders, then it will be an endless inquiry and no inquiry can reach its logical conclusion~In this behalf, t may be stated here that while interpreting a provision of statute or rules, such interpretation is not to be placed, which would render object of statute or rules as futile r hich in other words would frustrate very object of statute or rules-However, Supreme Court may further add that it will depend upon nature of each order as to whether appeal against such order is maintainable or not because above mentioned situations deal with procedural matters-Questions of mala fides and coram non-judice ould tand on a different footing-Supreme Court may further add here that right of appeal is a statutory right and is conferred upon person aggrieved and statutes conferring uch right also to give evidence 01 to |"uw."~ ~ define its scope-No extraneous consideration or matter can be importedin statute so as to abridge or enlarge cope of appeal-Omission of word 'final' from S. 4 of Service Tribunals Act does not enlarge scope of appeal as envisaged by S. 4 of Act-Provision of Section 4 lays own conditions and circumstances in which an appeal is maintainable or not~To illustrate, u/S. 4(b) & (c) no appeal lies to a Tribunal against an order of decision of a epartmental Authority determining fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade and similarly, o appeal lies against an order or decision of a Departmental Authority at any time before 1st of July, 1969- -Under Section 4(a), an embargo has been placed by egislature on filing an appeal to effect that if an appeal, review or representation to a Departmental Authority is provided under Civil Servants Act or Rules gainst-such rders, then no appeal is maintainable before Tribunal unless aggrieved person has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such Departmental uthority and a period of 90 days has elapsed from date on which such appeal, application or representation was preferred-In Supreme Courts view, scope of appeal under Section 4 is confined only where a person has been dismissed or removed from service or has been compulsory retired or has been reduced to a lower post or ime-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale, Section 4(2) (b) also envisages appeal to Tribunal in respect of grievance not covered by Section 4(a)~Held : An appeal nder Section 4 of Service Tribunals Act is maintainable only, when question relates to enforcement of terms and conditions of service of an employee as envisaged by Service Tribunals act, and omission of word 'final' would not advance case of appellants-Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended before Court that in view of rule of law laid down in different judgments no full-fledged inquiry had been held and since complicated and controversial questions are involved, therefore, it was ncumbent upon authority to hold an inquiry-However, at this stage, Court cannot touch this aspect because it is for authorities in OPF to consider this question in light of udgments referred to do justice with the cause of the appellants- Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed.