AJK Civil Servants Act, 1976

  1. —preamble of the Act, 1976—object of the Act, 1976—to regulate appointment, terms and conditions and matters connected therewith, of persons in the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others  2022 SCR 1163 (E)
  2. Section 2 (B) — “Civil Servant”— definition of — the definition clearly includes all the persons who holds the civil post in the service of AJ&K in connection with the affairs of the State. Held: according to this definition, the persons holding the judicial office are also acting in connection with the affairs of the State. M. Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority  2014 SCR 1180 (U)
  3. —Section 2 (b)—civil servant—definition of- Industrial Development Bank Limited v. Sajid Hameed & others 2017 SCR 850 (E)
  4. S. 2 (G) — The definition of word ‘pay’ makes it clear that only those emoluments would be part of pay which have been declared by the prescribed authority as such and not otherwise. — In the instant case Secretariat Allowance has not been declared as pay by the prescribed authority, it cannot be regarded that it is ‘pay’ and thus is covered by the phrase ‘terms and conditions’ within the meaning of Civil Servants Act. Azad Govt.  v. Abdul Kabir Qureshi  1994 SCR 402 (D)
  5. S. 2(1)(B)(ii) — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, R.16 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act (XXII of 1975), S.4 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss.47 & 49 — Temporary appointment without advertising the post — Appellant was appointed temporarily, and on the recommendations of Selection Committee, his services were regularized, but Departmental Authority appointed the respondent against the said post — Initial appointment order of the appellant was issued without advertising the post, but order was mere ‘Iwzi Taqaruri,  ( ) — Under R.16 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, advertisement of vacancy was precondition for the appointment — No person appointed as “Iwzi” ( )  could claim permanent induction against the post without following due process of law — Appellant had failed to bring on record any valid order to substantiate his stand that he had been permanently appointed — Sub-clause (ii) of clause (B) of S.2 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, had excluded a person who was employed on contract, or on work charge basis, or who was paid from contingencies — “Iwzi” ( ) appointment order of the appellant, had clearly  revealed that he was paid from the contingency — Person who was not permanently appointed against the post or who was paid from contingencies, was not civil servant for the purpose of right of appeal before the Service Tribunal — Service Tribunal, in circumstances, had rightly concluded that the appellant had got no locus standi to file appeal before the Service Tribunal. Zafar Iqbal v. Secretary Education of AJ&K (Colleges), Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir 2012 SCR 378
  6. Ss. 2 to 23 — Provide method of recruitment, promotion and other terms and conditions of service including the posting etc. — S.9 — Deals with prerogative of Crown to post any civil servant in his department or out of it — The only impediment provided by section itself is that the terms and conditions of service of the incumbent so transferred shall not be less favourable to those which he enjoys before his transfer — Held: Impugned Government notification does not in any way adversely affect the terms and conditions of service of appellant — The respondent-Government has the  executive authority to post a person irrespective of seniority which factor has to be considered when the post in question has to be filled in by promotion. Dr. Muhammad Rafique v. Azad Government & 3 others 2007 SCR 429 (B)
  7. Ss. 2, 4 and 8 r/w rules framed thereunder, a vacancy in civil service of the State can be filled in only in ‘prescribed’ manner; the word prescribed has been defined in section 2 of the Act — Therefore, the vacancy of Cook in grade B-4 cannot be filled in by promotion without first amending the said rules and making necessary provision in that regard — The matter has been discussed by full bench of this Court in a case reported as Syed Sajid Hussain v. Ch .Muhammad Latif [1992 PLC (C.S.) 421], thus the concerned authorities have committed an error in filling in the vacancy of the Cook in grade B-4 by promotion in absence of any provision in that regard. Jamil Ahmad v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2002 SCR 241 (A)
  8. S. 3. Terms and Conditions of Civil Servants — It is a well settled law now that if a matter relates to the terms and conditions of service of civil servant, it is essentially cognizable by the Service Tribunal and no relief can be sought by resorting to writ jurisdiction. Azad Government and another v. Abdul Kabir Qureshi and others 1994 SCR 402 (A)
  9. “Terms and Conditions” of Civil servants though scattered yet given in the chapter-II of the Civil Servants Act which include appointment, probation, confirmation, seniority, promotion, posting, transfer, termination of service, retirement from service, removal from service, reversion to lower grade or service, re-employment, conduct, efficiency and discipline, pay, leave, pension, gratuity, provident fund and group insurance. The authorities who are competent to pass appropriate orders in respect of terms and conditions have been specified under different rules and delegation orders- Every authority who can pass an order in respect of these terms and conditions is a departmental authority within the meaning of explanation given in the said Act- If an order has been passed by any of these authorities appeal would lie to the Service Tribunal- If any authority trans-gresses its jurisdiction and passes an order without jurisdiction, it will be a good ground on which an appeal before the Service Tribunal can be based. Accountant General and others v. Zaman Hussain Khan 1993 SCR 259 (E)
  10. S. 3 — Terms and Conditions of service — Question whether grant of Secretariat allowance is a term and conditions of service? — If a matter is not covered by the Act or Rules framed thereunder that cannot be regarded a term or condition of the service of a civil servant within the meaning of the Act — Provisions of Civil Servants Act and the rules made thereunder indicate that no such allowance as Secretariat Allowance has been envisaged as a term and condition of service of a civil servant. Azad Government and another v. Abdul Kabir Qureshi and others 1994 SCR 402(C)
  11. Section 3 — Terms & conditions—the terms and conditions of civil servant means which are mentioned in the Act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder. M. Nazir  v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2015 SCR 393 (C)1994 SCR 402 ref.
  12. S. 4 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42(12) — Ad hoc appointment — Request for permanent induction — Petitioners who were appointed on ad hoc basis after test and interview had contended that their period of ad hoc service was extended from time to time and sought direction to the concerned authority, not to conduct test and interview in the light of fresh advertisement to the extent of posts held by them; and that recommendations be sent to Public Service Commission for their permanent induction against the posts occupied by them — Division Bench of the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions — Validity — All the appointments in the civil service, were made on the basis of merits determined in the open competition — Selection on merits was instrumental in creating necessary confidence and independence to perform the functions as a civil servant particularly under the Rules of Business — Purpose of appointment on the basis of merits determined in open competition, was that all the civil servants appointed after open competition should carry on the administration independently — Public Service Commission, was an important organ of the State for recruitment in civil service; it was a constitutional body under Azad Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, all the posts in grade-B-16 and above fall within the purview of the Public Service Commission,  which was empowered to conduct tests and interview for recruitments of civil servants — No legal question being involved in the petition for leave to appeal, same was dismissed. Hussain Khan and 57 others v. Azad Government and 9 others 2012 SCR 45 Dr. Navida Tufail and others v. Government of Punjab and others 2003 SCMR 291 ref.  AZAD Jammu and Kashmir Government v. Javed Iqbal Khawaja and another 1996 PLC (C.S.) 155; Azad Govt. and others v. Muhammad Younus Tahir and others 1994 CLC 2339 and Azad Govt. and others v. Muhammad Younus tahir and others 1994 CLC 2339 rel.
  13. Section 4 — an appointment against a civil post shall be made in the prescribed manner by the Government or an authorized person. Molvi Abdul Latif Qari & 366 others v. Azad Govt. & 43 others 2014 SCR 1104 (A)
  14. —section 4 of AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976—appointment to be made in prescribed manner by Government or person authorized by the Government— section 4 of Act, 1976, provides that the appointments to a civil service of Azad Jammu & Kashmir or a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Government, shall be made in the prescribed manner by the Government, or by a person authorized by it in that behalf. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others  2022 SCR 1163 (G) 2015 SCR 367 rel.
  15. Sections 4, 6 to 9 — deal with the appointments, confirmation, seniority, promotion and posting & transfer of a civil servant — All these matters fall in the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Muhammad Ilyas Abbasi v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1133 (B) 
  16. S. 4 — Appointment to civil service or a civil post has to be made in prescribed manner. S. 7 (2) — Postulates that seniority in a grade to which a civil servant is promoted, shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade. S. 8 — Provides for promotion to a post in accordance with prescribed manner — Held: The appointment by initial recruitment, promotion from the lower post or grade and even by transfer has to be made as prescribed by rules — The date of continuous appointment means the date on which a claimant has regularly been appointed. M. Farid Shahzad v. Azad Govt. 2009 SCR 143 (E)
  17.  —section 4 deals with the appointments in civil service — the essence of section 4, is that appointment to civil service or a civil post has to be made in prescribed manner. Kanwal Shahzadi vs Muhammad Naeem & others  2024 SCR 348 (D)
  18. Section 6(6) provides that confirmation of a Civil Servant against a post shall take effect from the date of the occurrence of a permanent vacancy. M. Luqman & another v. Malik Ejaz Ahmed & 3 others 2016 SCR 1690 (B)
  19. — S.7— seniority— inter-se— under section 7  (3), the authority has been conferred with the powers to cause the seniority list from time to time of the members of such service, cadre or grade— The seniority takes effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade— under  proviso to section 7(2)  the civil servants who are selected for promotion to higher grade in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher grade, retain their inter-se-seniority. Muhammad Tufail Mir & 6 others v. Secretary Electricity Deptt. & others 2017 SCR 35 (E)  2013 SCR 889 rel.
  20. —Section 7—seniority— determination of—the seniority in a post, service or cadre, shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to the post and in case of promotion, it shall take effect from the date of regular promotion. Muhammad Ashraf & others v.  The Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 604 (A)
  21. —Section 7—seniority claim from promotion on the basis of four-tire formula—under the relevant provisions of law and the rules, the seniority can only be claimed on the basis of regular appointment against the post, service or cadre, either; by initial recruitment, transfer or promotion excluding the appointments on acting charge, current charge and promotion on officiating basis, made for the purpose of monetary benefits, time-scales etc. which does not come within the purview of regular promotion— the claim of seniority can only be based on regular appointment/promotion. Muhammad Ashraf & others v.  The Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 604 (B)2006 SCR 15 and 2009 SCR 70 ref.
  22. —section 7, AJK Civil Servants Act, 1976—seniority—inter- se-seniority—defined— sub-section (3) of section 7 shows that the authority has been conferred with the powers to cause the seniority list from time to time of the members of such service, cadre, or grade. The section provides that the seniority takes effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade. A proviso has been attached to sub-section 2 of section 7 that the civil servants who are selected for promotion to the higher grade in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher grade, retain their inter-se- seniority. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others  2022 SCR 1163 (S) 2013 SCR 889 rel.
  23. S. 8 — Under the section minimum qualification prescribed for promotion is essential and no departure can be made from it. Umar Din Kiani v. Azad Govt. & others 1995 SCR 166  (A)
  24. S. 8 — A person can only be promoted to a higher post if he possesses minimum qualification prescribed for the higher post. Umar Din Kiani v. Azad Govt. & others 1995 SCR 166 (B)
  25. R. 8 of the Rules and section 7 of the Act — A combined reading of the above provisions of law makes it abundantly clear that a civil servant being senior in lower grade, though promoted later on shall remain senior in the higher grade, provided that he was not considered and superseded by the Selection Authority — The appellant was given the benefit of his service rendered in the Department of Peoples Works Programme which order was not challenged by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 before any competent forum and as such remained intact throughout. Again another order was issued whereby the Govt. accorded the sanction of the seniority of the appellant from the date of his initial appointment as Assistant Engineer in the department of Peoples Works Programme towards Public Works Department. The order was also not challenged by respondents Nos.3 and 4 as such the respondents were illegally declared senior to the appellant. Ch. Muhammad Zaman v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 1996 SCR 171 (A)
  26. S. 8 — Promotion — Minimum qualification prescribed for promotion is essential and no departure can be made from it — A person can only be promoted to a higher post if he possesses minimum qualification prescribed for the higher post. M. Aslam v. Azad Govt. 2007 SCR 150 (A) 1995 SCR 166 rel.
  27.  The departmental rules have to be read keeping in view S.8 of Civil Servants Act which is parent statute. Dr. Abdul Ghaffar Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2008 SCR 230 (N)
  28. S. 8 — Promotion — Contention that post of Child Specialist is a selection post and promotion order can be issued only on the basis of merit — Government issued Health Department Service Rules 1984 under section 23 of the Act — S. No.13 col. 8 of rules provides 50 o/o by initial recruitment 50  o/o by promotion — Held: Entries clarify that the criterion for promotion will be merit-cum-fitness — Held further: Had the post been a selection post the rules should have provided as such and the mode should have been only merit. Dr. Sadiq Hussain v. AJ&K Government and 6 others 2009 SCR 345 (C)
  29. —Section 8—promotion of civil servants—on the basis of time scale policy—term “time Scale” and regular promotion—concept and scope—claim of premature increments, entertainments, and senior post allowances—validity—civil servants—in pursuance of the policy were promoted on the recommendations of the Selection Boards— after getting the promotion in higher grades—they claimed the premature increments, entertainments and senior post allowances— authority refused to pay the same on the ground that the time-scale policy is an incentive to extend the monetary benefits— and the promotions made under the said policy are not regular promotions—contention of the civil servant is that they have gone through the process of selection and after recommendations of the selection board they were promoted thus, it cannot be said that the promotions of the civil servant are not regular promotions– Held: no policy or rule can be given the preference over the basic statute or the policy/rules cannot be made or enacted in deviation of the relevant provisions of the basic statute. Further held: that promotion shall only be made against a post. Prof. Malik Arshad  Aziz & others v. Finance Department & others 2017 SCR 559 (B) 2001 SCMR 252, 1999 SCMR 1549, PLJ 2008 Tr.C (Services) 195 and 2005 PLC (C.S) 1260 rel.
  30. —Section 8—promotion on the regular basis and promotion on the basis of time –scale policy—scope of—Held: that the right of promotion of the civil servants on the regular basis has not been curtailed as u/s 8. on the availability of the posts the eligible persons shall have a right to be promoted on regular basis. Further held: that the promotion which has been made in pursuance of the time-scale policy was not a promotion in strict sense of the word rather it is only an incentive for extending the monetary benefits. Prof. Malik Arshad  Aziz & others v. Finance Department & others 2017 SCR 559 (C)
  31. —Section 8—promotion and regular promotion— ‘promotion’ means taking of a further step on a ranking or change of grade to higher pay scale, however, the regular promotion means promotion against a post as defined in section 8—Held: that mere mentioning of word ‘promotion’ in the time-scale policy notification does not mean the regular promotion and Further held: only that promotion shall be treated as regular promotion which has been made against the available post in the light of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976. [Prof. Malik Arshad  Aziz & others v. Finance Department & others 2017 SCR 559 (E)
  32. Section 8 read with rule 14 of AJ&K Civil Servants (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 — Civil servants — Promotion to higher grade or post — Selection Board or Selection Committee has to evaluate the merit. Held: If all other credentials, including record, efficiency etc. are equal, the seniority constitute an edge for contender. Whether a post is selection post or non-selection post, the competent authority whether it is Selection Board or Selection Committee, the inter-se-merit of the contenders has to be seen and all justifications are at the back of concerned Board of Committee to evaluate the merit which also includes educational qualification and competency to undertake the responsibilities of with higher grade. There is only one exception which can validity be taken against the authority of pleading that action of the competent authority stems or oozes from patent mala-fide of the authority. Kh. Maqbool Ahmed v. Azad Govt. 2011 SCR 66 (A)
  33. Held: That the combined effect of relevant provision of the AJ&K Civil Servants (Terms and Conditions of service) Rules, 1977 and the AJ&K Civil Servants Acts, 1976 in regard to promotion to a post or grade is that if all other required conditions are equal and the post is one of selection post, the contender with higher qualification has to be preferred. Further held: In case of a post where promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority cum-fitness, the seniority alone shall not constitute a right for promotion if in the estimation of the competent authority the senior man is not found fit to handle the responsibilities of higher office. Kh. Maqbool Ahmed v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2011 SCR 66 (B)
  34. S.8 — Seniority — “Continuous appointment” term of — Meaning — The term ‘continuous appointment’ refers to the appointment of a civil servant made on regular basis and continuous without any break. Syed Subtain Hussain Kazmi, Tehsildar presently posted at Bagh Development Authority and others v. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Kazmi, NaibTehsildar presently posted at office of Deputy Commissioner, Bagh, Haveli and others 2013 SCR 889 (D)
  35. S. 9-Promotion — Promotion against a higher post but not against an equivalent post- civil servants who are granted senior scale, do not stand promoted in strict sense but it is now generally described as promoted to a higher scale. M. Azad Khan v. The Secretary AJK Council 1993 SCR 387 (A)
  36. U/s. 9 competent authority is vested with jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders of transfer and posting of civil servants subordinate to it — Under the provision of law no civil servant can claim posting at a particular place as of right — No doubt the Government has issued instructions that a civil servant shall retain his posting at a particular place at least for a period of two years — However, if a person is transferred before the expiry of two years’ stay at a particular station by the competent authority such transfer order cannot be termed void ab initio merely that it has been passed in violation of Government policy — A civil servant, therefore, cannot disobey the transfer order. IQBAL BEGUM vs. AZAD GOVERNMENT & 6 others 2002 SCR 532 (A)
  37. S. 9 — Seniority — Appellant had refused to accept the transfer order, her seniority could not be disturbed merely by her refusal to join some other place on account of her transfer — A civil servant can be transferred anywhere and if he/she refuses to join his/her duty at the place where he/she was transferred, he/she is liable to be proceeded against under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules but his/her seniority cannot be disturbed in an unlawful manner. Raheela Khalid v. Azad Govt. and 5 others 2002 SCR 280 (A)
  38. S. 9 — Every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere in or outside Azad Kashmir on a post under the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the Council or Federal Government of Pakistan or any Provisional Government of Pakistan or a local authority, corporation or body, set up or establishment by any such Government — The only condition imposed on this power of the Government is that where a civil servant is required to serve on a post outside the service or his terms and conditions of service as to pay shall not be less favourable than those he was entitled to before the order of transfer or posting. Mst. Shaista Idrees v. Mst. Gul Shereen & 7 others 2006 SCR 294 (A)
  39. The posting and transfer of any employee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Kashmir Government is prerogative of the Government but the Authority so conferred is not absolute as the same has to be exercised keeping the transfer policy and the Courts can cancel or strike down any order of transfer which is based on political consideration or stems from mala fide.
  40. Employees of Education Department, Health Services and Animal Husbandry from grade 1 to 15 are to be posted near to the place of their residence as far as possible to extend possible convenience to them. A civil servant posted and transferred at a particular place has to remain at least for a period of two years. The policy referred to in different notifications which are basically based on a decision taken in a Cabinet meeting, although create a right, is not absolute as well and deviation is allowed by relaxing the policy in suitable cases. Mst. Shaista Idrees v. Mst. Gul Shereen & 7 others 2006 SCR 294 (B)
  41. S. 9 — There are only two exceptions to the exercise of powers under section 9 — A protection has been extended to a civil servant that his terms and conditions of service to the extent of pay shall not be less favourable if he is required to serve on a post outside his service or cadre and the other exception is that powers must be exercised fairly and imparitially and colourable exercise of authority motivated by political considerations is not allowed. Dr. Muhammad Rafique v. Azad Government & 3 others 2007 SCR 429 (D)
  42. S. 9 — Transfer can only be made against a vacant post — At the time of transfer there was no post of constables vacant in District Mirpur or District Bhimber — That is why the respondents were directed to receive the pay from District Kotli — Held: The order of transfer becomes clearly in violation of S. 9. Deputy Inspector General of Police & another v. M. Yaseen and another 2008 SCR 611 (B)
  43. S. 9 — Transfer made to other district — There was no post vacant — Held: Transfer is against S. 9. Deputy Inspector General of Police & another v. M. Yaseen and another 2008 SCR 611 (D)
  44. S. 9 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42(12) — Transfer — Petitioner was transferred from the college at place ‘M’ to the one at place ‘I’ — Said transfer order was assailed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal — Tribunal dismissed appeal of the petitioner — Validity — No element of political victimization was found in the case — Under S.9 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, every civil servant of would be liable to serve anywhere within or outside Azad Jammu & Kashmir in any post under the Government — Normal tenure of stay of a civil servant at one station though should not be less than three years, but, in the exigency of the service, a  transfer could be made — Postings and transfers, exclusively fell under the discretion  and domain of competent Authority which must not be exercised in an arbitrary or fanciful manner, but should be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fair play — Order accordingly. Misbah Mushtaq v. D.P.I. Colleges, AJ&K, Muzaffarabad 2012 SCR 11 Muhammad Fazil v. Kishwar Sikandar and 6 others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1047; Fayyaz Ahmad v. Government of Punjab 1991 PLC (C.S.) 153 and Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 530 rel.
  45. S. 9 — Transfer and posting of a civil servant — Exercise of power — Although under said section, a civil servant can be transferred anywhere and the transfer and posting is the sole prerogative to the government but this power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Nazia Tabassum (Mst.) v. Mst. Robina latif and 8 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 356 (A)
  46. S. 9 — Transfer order of Civil Servant — Said transfer order was challenged before Service Tribunal through service appeal which was accepted — Judgment of Service Tribunal had been acted upon in letter and spirit — It was urged that transfer and posting is the sole prerogative of the Government and that Service Tribunal failed to take into consideration that transfer had been issued in light of departmental rules — Validity — Although a civil servant can be transferred anywhere and the transfer and posting is the sole prerogative of the government but this power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily — Time and again, Supreme Court in a number of cases held that reasonable period of stay at one station would not be less than three years — Transfer order had already been implemented which was passed after a very short span of time without adhering the law on the subject — Further held, convenience of a female should also be kept in mind while passing a transfer order — No question of public importance was involved — Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. TRANSFER OF CIVIL SERVANT — (Law) [Transfer order of respondent-female had been passed during a very short span of time without adhering the law which was rightly set aside by Tribunal. Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal]. Nazia Tabassum (Mst.) v. Mst. Robina latif and 8 others  2013 SCR (SC AJ&J) 356 (C)
  47. S. 9 — Order of transfer of teacher — Political Motivation — Proper procedure for transfer of teacher is that the process of the transfer has to be initiated from the office of relevant authority and after fulfilling the requirement the order be passed — In instant case, the proposal for transfer of two teacheress was initiated by the Minister for AKLASC and Irrigation Department — Said Minister had no authority to submit a proposal for transfer of a school teacher — Minister Education could not act upon the proposal submitted by another department and order for transfer — Very proposal submitted by unconcerned Minister was not a legal one and any order passed on said proposal by the Minister Education was against the rule of prudence and not a judicious order — Civil appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. TRANSFER ORDER — (Political motivation) [In instant case, Education department had issued order of transfer on proposal submitted by unconcerned Minister, which was illegal. Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court]. Naila Bashir, Senior Teacheress, Government Girls Middle School Taie Khas, Tehsil Hajira, District Poonch Versus Syeda Zanib-un-Nisa, Senior Teacheress, Government Girls High School, Dera Sher Khan, Tehsil Hajira, District Poonch and 4 others 2013 SCR 785
  48. S. 9 — AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Order of transfer — Service appeal — Matter of stay order — Service Tribunal had refused stay order on ground that said order had been implemented — Validity — If a transfer order is implemented, the Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to suspend the same — Even otherwise, after implementation of transfer order in question, said respondent would suffer an irreparable loss if operation of transfer order was suspended — Since said respondent had joined his new place of posting, balance of convenience also appeared in his favour — No prima facie arguable case had been made out by petitioner, therefore, grant of leave would only be an exercise in futility — Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. TRANSFER ORDER — (Stay matter) [Transfer Notification had since been implemented, therefore, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to suspend said notification during appeal. Leave to appeal was refused]. Dil Khurram, Executor Engineer, PWD Highways Sudhenuti, Pallandari v. Azad Govt. of the State of J&K. through Pallandari v. Azad Govt. of the State of J&K through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 8 others 2013 SCR  767
  49. Section 9 — A civil servant is obliged to serve under the Government inside or outside of Azad Jammu and Kashmir wherever he/she is posted.  A civil servant cannot claim to remain posted at one station for an indefinite period or seek posting of his/her own choice.  Nusrat Jabeen v. Azad Govt. & 7 others 2014 SCR 456 (A)
  50. Section 9 — A civil servant is obliged to serve under the Govt. anywhere outside or within AJ&K but, held: a civil servant cannot be posted without any post.  Shahid Hussain Malik v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2014 SCR 466 (E)
  51. Section 9 — Postings and transfers of civil servants are governed under section 9 which provides that every civil servant is liable to serve under the Government anywhere within or outside the AJ&K in any post under the Government or the Council or the Federal Government of Pakistan or any Provincial Government of Pakistan, or a local authority or a Corporation or a body set up  or established by any such Government provided that where a civil servant is required to serve in a post outside his service or cadre, his terms and conditions of service as to his pay shall not be less favourable then those to which he would have been entitled if he had not been so required to serve. Muhammad Ilyas Abbasi v.  Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1133 (C) 2006 SCR 294, 2007 SCR 429,  2008 SCR 611 & 2009 SCR 63. ref. 
  52. Section 9 — A civil servant can be transferred anywhere inside or outside Azad Jammu & Kashmir against a post — A civil servant cannot be left without post. Muhammad Ilyas Abbasi  v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1133 (P)
  53. Section 9 — A civil servant may be posted as officer on special duty (OSD) whenever required as such. Ordinarily, no Government servant shall be posted as OSD except under the compelling circumstances. M. Ilyas Abbasi v. Azad Govt.  2015 SCR 1133 (Q) PLD 2011 (SC) 963 ref.
  54. Section 9 — A civil servant has no vested right to remain posted at one place for an indefinite period and he can be posted anywhere in exigency of service. Imtiaz Ghani v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2016 SCR 1094 (B) 2014 SCR 456 rel.
  55.  Section 9 — There is no cavil with the proposition that u/s .9 of the Civil Servants  Act, 1976, every civil servants is liable to serve anywhere within or outside the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, moreover, in exigency of service there is no bar on the authority to transfer a civil servant even before the completion of the normal tenure, but at the same time, it is also settled that if a civil servant is transferred within a short span of time, the authority is bound to assign the reasons. Muhammad Saeed Durani v. Azad Govt. & 7 others 2016 SCR 1741 (C)
  56. —Section 9— every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere within or outside AJ&K—in exigency of service there is no bar to transfer a civil servant even before the completion of normal tenure, but if a civil servant is transferred within a short span of time, the authority is duty bound to assign the reasons. Muhammad Ayub Abbasi & another v. Muhammad Hussain & others 2022 SCR 62 (B)
  57. —Section 9—it is the prerogative of the authority to transfer a civil servant from one place to another—a civil servant has no right to remain posted at a particular station for an indefinite period or seek posting of his own choice. Dr. Muhammad Saeed  Awan v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 156 (C) 2016 SCR 1094 ref.
  58. —Section 9—transfer and posting—not of own choice—under section 9 of the AJ&K Civil Servant Act, 1976, a civil servant is obliged to serve under the Government inside or outside of the AJ&K, wherever, he/she is posted. Held: —A Civil Servant has not vested right to remain posted at particular station for an indefinite period or seek posting of his /her              own choice. Fareed Ahmed v. DPI Education (Male) & others 2022 SCR 1420 (A) 2016 SCR 1094 & 2014 SCR 456 rel.
  59. — Section 9—transfer and posting—u/s 9 of AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976, a civil servant is bound to serve, wherever he is transferred or posted and he cannot claim posting at one station for an indefinite period or seek posting of his own choice. Muhammad Qadeer v. Minister of Revenue Deptt. & others  2022 SCR 1426 (F) 2016 SCR 1094 ref.
  60. —Section 9—transfer & posting— It may also be observed here that u/s 9 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976, a civil servant is bound to serve under the Govt. wherever he/she is transferred and posted. No one can claim that he/she has a prerogative to serve on a particular post and at a particular station for an indefinite period. Muhammad Pervaiz v. D.I.G Police & others 2022 SCR 1674 (B) 2007 SCR 268 rel
  61. — section 9 — transfer & posting — u/s 9, every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere within or outside of AJ&K in any post under Govt. the word ‘any post’ implies ‘vacant post’, thus a transfer can only be made against a vacant post. Nighat Aara versus Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 729 (A)  2008 SCR 613 ref.
  62.  S. 10 — Services of a civil servant can be terminated without notice during the initial or extended period of his probation. Khalid Ashraf v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 1999 SCR 463 (C)
  63. S. 10 — Provides that in the event, if the post is abolished or number of posts is decreased the services of the junior most persons shall be terminated. Shahzad Abdul Hussain v. Chief Conservator of Forests & 5 others 2008 SCR 512 (C)
  64. Section 12 — modes of retirement from service — three modes of retirement; (I) the competent authority may retire a civil servant after his attaining 10 years service qualifying for pension or other retirement benefits, as it may, in public interests, direct; (ii) a civil servant shall retire on completion of age of 60 years; and (iii) at anytime, at his option, after completion of 25 years service qualifying for pension — in first eventuality the Govt. has power to retire a person after giving him in writing the grounds on which it is retiring him after completing 10 years service — in third eventuality it is the option of a civil servant that he may seek retirement, but there is no option available to a civil servant in second eventuality — a civil servant shall retire when he/she attains the age of 60 years.  There is no other option available to a civil servant.  The provisions ipso fact operates and a civil servant remains no more in service.  Held: retirement under section 12(ii) is always from service and not from a post on reaching the age of superannuation, a civil servant shall retire from service whatever post he is holding.  Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & 2 others 2014 SCR 13 (G)
  65. Section 12 — retirement from service — attaining age of superannuation — 60 years — included in terms and conditions of service —according to the statutory provisions of section 12 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 the retirement from service on completion of 60th year of age is included in the terms and conditions of service and it operates automatically on attaining the superannuation. As the phraseology of this statutory provision is unambiguously clear which speaks that a civil servant shall retire from service on completion of 60th year of age. Secretary Services & others v. Bashir Mir 2015 SCR  851 (E)
  66. Section 12 — retirement from service — Rule 3 and 5, AJ&K Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1971 — Both the referred provisions speak that the civil servant can be retired on completion of 25 years of service or earlier in the public interest. Thus, it cannot be said that the retirement orders passed after 25 years of service are without lawful authority. Taskeen Naz v. Fehmida Begum & 11 others 2016 SCR 1436 (C)
  67. Section 12 — section 7(2) of AJ&K Teachers Foundation Act, 1997 — civil servant appointed by transfer on deputation as Managing Director — tenure post — civil servant retired from service — question whether he/she entitled to complete the tenure — contention that respondent civil servant posted as Managing Director Teacher Foundation — she retired from service before completion of tenure — she is entitled to complete the tenure — held: A Govt. servant may remain on deputation out of his/her department till he/she is in Govt. service.  After the retirement from service, there is no concept of remaining on deputation in any other department/autonomous body. Respondent/civil servant was appointed as Divisional Director when she was transferred on deputation to the post of Managing Director the tenure of the post is 3 years but further held: only such DPIs. Or holder of equal post or Directors/Divisional Directors of Education Department are entitled to avail the tenure of the post who are in Govt. service — a civil servant who retires before completion of 3 years tenure is not entitled to complete 3 years period.  Respondent civil servant, after reaching the age of superannuation remained no more civil servant and is not entitled to hold the post of Managing Director Teachers Foundation. Azad Govt. v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & 2 others 2014 SCR 13 (H)
  68. The case of appellant is simple that he is also entitled to the same pay and privileges which he was getting when he retired in grade BPS-21 — Section 13 of Civil Servants Act deals with employment after retirement. Held: This section does not address the proposition in hand except to justify that a civil servant can be appointed and re-employment can be ordered after retirement. Muhammad Younas v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2010 SCR 271 (A)
  69. — section 13 — employment after retirement — pre-requisite and essence for — a retired civil servant may only be reemployed by the Govt. if there exists a compelling reason that unequivocally serves the public interest — the decision to reemploy a retired civil servant must be rooted in a legitimate Govt. purpose devoid of individual or departmental predilections — reemployment decision necessitates the prior approval of Govt.  except where the appointing authority itself is the Govt. — no retired civil servant shall be reemployed or allowed to continue working for the Govt. once he has attained the age of 63 years. Muhammad Jameel Safdar versus Muhammad Iqbal & 11 others 2023 SCR 1035  (A)
  70. — section 13 — employment after retirement — essence of — ‘public interest’ — section 13 does not out-rightly prohibit the reemployment after retirement, it does emphasize discouragement of such practice to ensure the unimpeded advancement of serving officials — reemployment must equivocally serve the public interest — the qualification, experience, credentials or skills of such individual must be of such a nature that no other candidate is more suitable for the appointment to the position or alternatively that the individual is indispensable to fulfilling the responsibilities of that role — the expression ‘public interest’, implies a matter relating to the people at large nation or a community as a whole and if the interest of general public or community is not involved in a matter, it cannot be brought within the purview of public interest — the object of provisions of section 13 is based on subject consideration and the requirement of ‘public interest’ may vary from case to case, therefore, an action taken or an order passed by the competent authority must have reasonable nexus with the ‘public interest’ — Muhammad Jameel Safdar versus Muhammad Iqbal & 11 others 2023 SCR 1035  (C&D)
  71. — section 13 — employment after retirement — essence and object of — Govt. regulated the service in AJ&K by enacting Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder — the Govt. also regulated policy for appointment in contract basis as well as reemployment — the powers generally exercised by the Govt. or a public functionary must be backed out strictly in line with the statutory law of the land — for establishment of good governance, it is imperative that both rules and ruled be adhered strictly and faithfully, to the dictates of law and the Constitution — any deviation from there principles not only trashes the reputation of institution but also undermines the credibility of a Govt. as a whole. Muhammad Jameel Safdar versus Muhammad Iqbal & 11 others 2023 SCR 1035 (G)
  72. S. 16 — If a person in lower grade is posted against a post carrying higher grade, he shall be entitled to claim the pay of the post. M. Maroof  v. Secretary Food & 2 others 2005 SCR 248 (B)
  73. S. 16 — A person is entitled to pay of post against which he has been posted. Azad Government & another v.  Muhammad Sadiq Khan & 14 others 2006 SCR 391 (C)
  74. Section 18 — AJ&K Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1971 — death of civil servant — before or after retirement — entitlement of family pensioners—according to the provisions of section 18 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servant Act, 1976 in the event of death of a Civil Servant, whether before or after retirement, his family shall be entitled to receive such pension, or gratuity or both, as may be prescribed. Under the enforced Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1971, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the family has been defined and other details have also been prescribed. Thus, in view of the statutory provisions the appellants who fall within the definition of the family pensioners are declared entitled for the same. Mst. Sahib Jan & others  v. I. G Police & others 2015 SCR 1440 (D) 
  75. S. 21 All Police Officers are Civil Servant within the meanings of Civil Servant Act 1976 — This Act applies then where the matter is not covered by the Police Act. Muhammad Bashir Khan v. I.G. Police & others 1993 SCR 241 (A)
  76. S. 21 Where a person neither considered nor his fitness has been determined is not covered by aforesaid provision appellant could file representation. M. Bashir Khan v. I.G. Police & others 1993 SCR 241 (B)
  77. Section 21 — departmental appeal or representation — right of — a right of appeal or representation before the authority is conferred upon an aggrieved civil servant under section 21 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744  (A)
  78. Section 21 — Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991 —  RR. 485 — decision of departmental appeal — appeal, representation or review before authority — Neither, section 21 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976, nor rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991, prescribe a period for decision of the appeal, review or representation by the authority — The right of appeal, representation or review before the authority is the creation of the statute, it cannot be snatched away on the ground that keeping pending of the same shall create hardships. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (F)
  79. section 21 — civil servants — terms & conditions — remedy — under the provisions of section 21, the civil servants are allowed to seek remedy in respect of any order relating to terms and conditions of service. Azad Govt. v. Dr. Kh. Rafique Ahmed & 25 others 2016 SCR 268 (A)
  80. —Section 21—rules 5, 6, 6(2), AJK Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991—right of appeal—conferred on civil servants—statutory right under section 21 of Act, 1976—Rules regulate the manner of filing of appeal and its disposal—Rule 5 of Rules, 1991—copy of appeal to be sent to the Department concerned and person against whom it is filed—para-wise comments to appeal required to be filed within 30 days— under Rule 6, mode of deciding of appeal provided—appellate authority required to pass such an order having regard to all circumstances of case , appears to it, just and equitable—provision of reasonable hearing is also requirement Muhammad Mehrban & others v. Rashid Habib & others 2017 SCR 1601 (A)
  81. S. 21(2) — If no provision for appeal or review exists in the rules — A civil servant may make representation against any order to the next higher authority which made that order — Without availing the departmental remedy appeal before Service Tribunal not maintainable. Muhammad Sagheer Awan v. Secretary Education & 4 others 1997 SCR 89 (A)
  82. S. 21(2) — If no provision for appeal or review exists in the rules — Civil servant may make a representation against any order to the next higher authority — Without availing the departmental remedy — Appeal before Service Tribunal not maintainable. Mumtaz Qamar v. Secretary Education & 4 others 1997 SCR 91 (A)
  83. — Section 21(2) — representation before the same authority— representation filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation— order passed by the authority, challenged before the Service Tribunal, was illegal and on the strength of the same, it cannot be held that the grievance of respondent was redressed— the proper course for the Service Tribunal was to dismiss the appeal of respondent on the ground that the representation before the same authority was not competent. Sajid Ali Gillani v. D.I.G. Police Telecom & others 2019 SCR 124 (A) 
  84. S. 22 — Whether the powers under section 22 could be exercised retrospectively — The moot question to be determined by the Tribunal was not whether the Government could exercise the powers vested in it under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act or not- The question was as to whether the same powers could be exercised retrospectively even if it was detrimental to the seniority of the appellant. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (E)
  85. S. 22 — Scope of – What is the scope of powers of the Government under section 22 of the AJK Civil Servants Act and the rules framed thereunder- whether taw Govt. could pass an order under the said provision giving it retrospective effect, even if the same adversely effects the seniority of other civil servants. Held; These powers are not absolute but are qualified. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (F)
  86. S. 22. The residuary power under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act cannot be said to have been exercised “justly and equitably” if the same have been exercised in a way which is detrimental to the interests of another civil servant — The residuary powers under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act are to be sparingly exercised to advance the course of justice and equality and not to give an undue advantage to a civil servant in contravention of relevant law on the subject. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (G)
  87. S. 22 of the Civil Servants Act not to override the P.S.C. Act — The law of the land is that is that posts in grade 16 and above (except discretionary posts) can be filled up on regular basis only in light of the merit determined by the P.S.C. through an open competition — This requirement cannot be waived, exempted or departed from in any circumstances. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297(J)
  88. S. 22 — Section 22 cannot override the P.S.C. Act — Even its phraseology does not say that it overrides any other law — It authorizes the Govt. to grant pension, leave, posting, retirement etc. to which a civil servant is not otherwise entitled, provided equity and justice so require. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (K)
  89. S. 22 — Powers to exempt a person from the requirements of the Public Service Commission Act do not flow from section 22 — If any person, as distinct from a post has to be exempted from the requirements of appointment through P.S.C. it can be done by amending the P.S.C — Act and not otherwise. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (H)
  90. S. 22 — The Govt. has no power under section 22 from exempting a person from appearance before the P.S.C.  — Phraseology of this section itself is so worded that the power to appoint a person on regular basis does not flow from it — The use of section 22 has been restricted by the legislature within the four corners of the Civil Servants Act while recruitment through the Public Service Commission is the requirement of section 48 of the Interim Constitution Act read with Public Service Commission Act and the rules made thereunder — This section does not extend to any other law than the Civil Servants Act. Azad Government  v. Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (QQ)
  91. S. 22 — Residuary powers of Government — The powers under this section are to be exercised irrespective of the provisions contained in the Act or Rules provided the same are ‘just and equitable’ — What would be ‘just and equitable’ in a particular case depends upon the circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard — In the instant case the order made by the Govt. in favour of Miss Shamila, respondent, under section 22 is not in consonance with spirit of law. — Order not sustainable — Nothing has been put on record that when writ petition of Muhammad Yunus Tahir V. Azad Government & others was already pending what prompted the Govt. to exercise power under Section 22. Azad Government  v.  Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (XX)
  92. S. 22 — Powers under this section are exerciseable only in respect of a civil servant but not a person who has ceased to be a civil servant or aspires to be one. Kh. Ghulam Muhammad  v. Azad Government & others 1995 SCR 162 (C)
  93. S. 22 — It is now settled law that the power under this section 22 cannot be exercised in such a way that it may adversely affect the seniority of any other civil servant because such an order would not be just and equitable. Kh. Ghulam M. v. Azad Government & others 1995 SCR 162 (D)
  94. S. 22 — The power of the relaxation of the rules can be exercised in individual cases which are ‘just and equitable’ as stipulated under section 22 of the AJK Civil Servants Act, 1976 for sufficient reasons and whole-sale order of relaxation of a service rule by the Govt. without giving reasons is not sustainable in law. Miss Azra Hafiz & others v. Israr Hussain Mughal 1996 SCR 211 (B)
  95. S. 22 — Just and equitable order — What is ‘just and equitable’ in a particular case depends upon the facts of such case — In the instant case, it cannot be said that the appellant, who was dismissed from service on the serious charge of misappropriation, could be re-instated by resorting to section 22 of the Civil Servants Act after the dismissal of his appeals — Even otherwise, as has been held by this Court in an unreported appeal entitled Abdul Qadir v. Abdul Karim & others [Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1998, decided on 4.2.1999], an order under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act can be made only in favour of a ‘civil servant’ who is in service and not a retired civil servant in view of the amended definition of the words ‘civil servant’. Nisar Ahmad Kayani v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 1999 SCR 193 (A)
  96. S. 22 — Govt. not competent to exercise powers u/s 22 in violation of just and equitable purpose. Abdul Majid & 24 others v. Abdul Latif Shah and 4 others 1999 SCR 459 (C)
  97. Section 22 — Gives power to Govt. to deal with the case of any civil servant in a just and equitable manner — The respondent was not a civil servant when the Prime Minister passed the order under reference — The definition of “civil servant” only includes a person who is in service and excludes person who has ceased to hold a civil post — Held: section 22 has no application to the present case. Abdul Qadir  v. Abdul Karim and 4 others 2000 SCR 97 (C)
  98. The Government of AJK u/s 22 of the Act can deal with the case of any civil servant in such manner as may appear to be just and equitable while under rule 24 of the Rules, the Government may for special reasons relax any of the rules. A. Shakoor v. Mrs. Shamim Khalid 2003 SCR 351(A)
  99. S. 22 — The Government has authority to grant retrospective promotion — But there is no specific provision in the Act or the rules categorically providing for this power of the competent authority. Asad Mahmood Malik v. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others 2009 SCR 129 (G)
  100. S. 22 — The service of the appellant cannot be regularised by the Government or competent authority on the basis of legislative enactment or a notification or order issued by the Government under section 22 of Civil Servants Act — Similarly the High Court or even Supreme Court cannot regularise the service — Prayer to that extent rejected. Muhammad Bilal Khan v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2009 SCR 493 (G)
  101. S. 22 — Anti-dated or proforma promotion — Exercise of powers by Government — Scope — Under the said statutory provisions, the Government is not vested with unlimited or unguided powers rather the powers vested and qualified with just and equitable purposes — Therefore, it is clear that anti-dated or proforma promotion while exercising the powers under said section, can only be made if necessary for just and equitable purposes — These powers cannot be exercised under discretion in an arbitrary manner. Syed Subtain Hussain Kazmi, Tehsildar presently posted at Bagh Development Authority v. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Kazmi, NaibTehsildar presently posted at office of Deputy Commissioner, Bagh, Haveli 2013 SCR 889 (F)
  102. S. 23 — The Government or any other person authorised to make rules as are necessary and expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act to lay down the qualification or make rules in respect of civil servants under its/his command — Mala fide in this regard cannot be challenged or substituted without any proof by the Courts of law. Syed Saleem Hussain Kazmi v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2005 SCR 259 (B)
  103. Section 23 — The govt. has itself framed the rules known as AJ&K Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, while exercising the powers conferred on it under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976. Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Dr. Kh. Rafique Ahmed & 25 others 2016 SCR 268 (B)
  104. Even if a person duly qualified the P.S.C. but is given antedated seniority over the other civil servants will be ultra vires of the section. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (L)
  105. Appointment of respondent on regular basis without determination of merit by the P.S.C. declared illegal. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (M)
  106. S. 23 — See AJ&K Electricity Department Service Rules, 2010, Entry No. 7; Column No.8. Waqar Hanif Versus Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad (AK) and 4 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 405
  107. Notification No. FD/R/13672-13772/88 dated 30.8.1988 granting Secretariat Allowance to certain Secretariat employees leaving others —Whether discriminatory, based on no reasonable classification and is violative of fundamental Right No. 15. The counsel for the appellant could not persuade the Court as to why the respondents- petitioners were not granted the allowance in question while it was allowed to the employees of the Secretariats mentioned in the aforesaid notification — The classification made does not appeal to reason, therefore, held arbitrary — also held that the respondents-petitioners were discriminated against in violation of fundamental right No. 15 guaranteed by the Interim Constitution Act. Azad Government and another v. Abdul Kabir Qureshi and others 1994 SCR 402 (G)
  108. Submission that law under which the Matriculation was laid down as qualification for further promotion of Inspector to D.S.P. was bad because this qualification has been laid down under the law which was enacted under the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1976 — Held: No force — Further held: after the repeal of K.S.R. Civil Servants Act, 1976 is mother law — Departments are authorised to enact laws under section 23 of said Act for the employees of their respective departments — Police Rules whereby no such condition was laid down cannot be given preference to the law which was enacted under section 23 of Civil Servants Act — Respondent at the relevant time was not Matriculate — His name was rightly not entered in the select list. Azad Government & another v. Muhammad Sadiq Khan & 14 others 2006 SCR 391 (A)
  109. S. 23 — Rules making powers vest in the Government — The Government is competent to enhance, alter or amend the prescribed qualification for a particular post. Rizwan Muzaffar v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2010 SCR 156 (B)
  110. S. 23 — Rules making power vests in the Government — It is right of the Government to frame rules and amend the same whenever required — Held: Senior Member Board of Revenue was not competent to issue such policy which overrides the provisions of rules. Muhammad Ijaz Khan & 12 others v. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and 10 others 2010 SCR 201 (A)
  111. The impugned notification does not indicate as to why the Employees of Civil Secretariat, President’s Secretariat, Prime Minister’s Secretariat and the AJK Legislative Assembly Secretariat have been given preference over the respondents, who have to perform, if not more, at least equally onerous duties as civil servants- Held there appears to be not rationale whatsoever to give a preferential treatment to the employees of the Secretariat: Further held: The classification made cannot be regarded as reasonable. Azad Govt. v. Abdul Kabir Qureshi 1994 SCR 402 (H)
  112. Even if a person duly qualified the P.S.C. but is given antedated seniority over the other civil servants will be ultra vires of the section. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (L)
  113. Appointment of respondent on regular basis without determination of merit by the P.S.C. declared illegal. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad v. Azad Govt. and another 1994 SCR 297 (M)
  114. Civil Servant Act not applicable to the University employees — Appeal to Service Tribunal can be filed by civil servant and not by a private citizen. Muhammad Sarwar Ahmad  v. The University of AJ&K and 6 others 1998 SCR 350 (A)
  115. Question, whether a Tehsil Qazi would be a civil servant for the purpose of seeking appointment as civil Judge B-17 notwithstanding the fact that he is a civil servant for the purpose of his service as Tehsil Mufti and Tehsil Qazi — So far as his induction for another service is conserned, can he be treated a civil servant — Held: for this purpose was not a civil servant and the Government could not make any relaxation in this regard. Abdul Shakoor v. Mrs. Shamim Khalid and 5 others 2003 SCR 351 (B) 1995 SCR 162, PLD 1997 SC 382 rel.
  116. Proposition, whether after restoration to service the appellant has been restored to the post of Chief Conservator of Forests or not — Held: The appellant was suspended from service when he was holding the post of Chief Conservator of Forests — If the Govt. had not posted respondent No.5 as Chief Conservator of Forests on acting charge basis and the post had been vacant he could be presumed to have been restored to the office of Chief Conservator of Forests — Held further: In view of powers of competent authority — It is sole prerogative of competent authority or for that matter the Govt. to post any civil servant against any post but not against a post which is not equal to his grade or status — All powers vested in the Govt. or competent authority do not recognize colourful exercise of power or authority which is a common problem for the servants of the State throughout the Third World countries. Sardar M. Farooq v. AJK Govt. 2007 SCR 196 (D)
  117. A policy or notification cannot override the statutory rules framed by the Government under the statute — Instructions and policies cannot amend statutory rules — It could only be done through amending the same and not by a policy — The policy can be made in the light of rules. Muhammad Ijaz Khan & 12 others v. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and 10 others 2010 SCR 201 (B)
  118. AJK (Relaxation of Age Limit) Rules, 1997 — AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42 — Appointment on work charge basis — Permanent induction — Policy — Respondents claimed that they were in continuous service for last many years and government had laid down a policy that such like employees had to be permanently adjusted but in their case the policy had not been applied rather the posts had been advertised — High Court while accepting writ petition had issued direction that respondents should be inducted according to the policy — Impugned judgment — Whether an employee on work charge basis could claim permanent induction without competition for determination of merit? — Whether there was any policy holding the filed for permanent induction of such like employees? — Key proposition — Factual/legal analysis — Respondents while accepting said condition had opted for temporary employment — Authority had not employed respondents on any of condition that they would be permanently inducted into service — On basis of those orders, neither any right of permanent induction was accrued nor respondents could claim so — No policy having force of law was holding the field for permanent induction of temporary employees — Appointment against a civil post can only be made on the basis of merit according to the prescribed mode — Any direction of the Executive or Prime Minister can only be implemented by the Courts of law if the same is issued according to the spirit of statutory law and under the powers vested by law — So far question of crossing upper age limit of some of respondents was concerned, if any of the respondents qualified for permanent induction in open merit, the continuous period rendered by him as work charge may be excluded from his age for the purpose of upper age limit — Impugned judgment of High Court was not sustainable and was set aside –Writ petition filed by respondents stood dismissed — Civil appeal accepted. WORK CHARGE EMPLOYEES — (Permanent  induction ) [No valid legal policy was holding the field for permanent induction of the work charge employees, therefore direction issued by High Court was not justified and proper. Supreme Court accepted appeal].  Chief Engineer, Public Works Department v. M. Saeed Charge Clerk PWD, High Division 2013 SCR 335
  119. —Legislation of AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976, was made deriving powers from Article 49, of AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, to regulate the service of civil servants of AJ&K. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others  2022 SCR 1163 (D)
  120. ‘Prescribed’, word of — Meaning — The word prescribed means the prescribed by rules. Syed Subtain H. Kazmi, Tehsildar presently posted at Bagh Development Authority v. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Kazmi, NaibTehsildar presently posted at office of Deputy Commissioner, Bagh, Haveli and 5 others  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 889 (E)
  121. Rule making powers of Government — Judicial Service — under the powers conferred by the provisions of Act, 1976 regarding terms and conditions and conduct of the persons subject of Judicial Service, the rules are made by the Government — The appointments, transfers etc. of the persons of judicial service subordinate to High Court are within the competence of the authority, i.e High Court but still there are some matters relating to the terms and conditions  of service of these persons which are being dealt by the Government like fixation of pay, grades, privileges, conduct, Efficiency and Discipline etc — held: they despite being in judicial service are also in the Government service — merely by making rules or application of the rules, does not mean that such persons are under the control of the Government in relation to performance of their judicial duties — according to law, the Government exercises, delegates rule making powers in relation to the terms and conditions of a person in the judicial service and no other authority in this regard can make rules. M. Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (GG)
  122. Terms and conditions — date of birth — the matter of correction of date of birth for the purpose of benefits of pension or superannuation is concerned, the pension, superannuation and retirement is included in terms and conditions of service. Secretary Services & others v. Bashir Mir 2015 SCR 851 (C)
  123. Preamble — The preamble provides the appointment to, and the terms and conditions of the persons in the service of AJ& K employed in connection with the affairs of the Government, and the matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto, be regulated by this law. Muhammad Ilyas Abbasi v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1133 (A)
  124. Regulation of terms and conditions — under Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder — According to the spirit of this constitutional provision [section 49 of Interim Constitution Act, 1974], the law making Authority is vested with the powers to regulate the terms and conditions of persons in service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Undoubtedly, by enforcement of Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder, the matter of terms and conditions of civil servants stood regulated by and the same has to be decided in the light of these laws. To this extent, the previous law will have no application. Thus, the provisions of Act, 1976 and other statutory provision of Rules made thereunder will have force of law in relation to determination of terms and conditions of service of civil servants. Moreover , none of the retired middle pass primary teachers, has challenged any provision of the Rules made under Act, 1976, thus, it can be safely held that the Rules made thereunder may have full application for the purpose of regulating the terms and conditions of service of the teachers of the Education Department. Taskeen Naz v. Fehmida Begum & 11 others 2016 SCR 1436 (B) 
  125. —Chapter –II—terms and conditions of civil servants–contention that the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant are covered under Chapter II of the AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976, and the conveyance Allowance is not included therein. –Held: It cannot be held that if a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant is not listed in Chapter II of the said Act, then the same cannot be treated as such. Finance Department & others v. Mehmoob Ahmed Awan & others 2019 SCR 309 (C)   1993 SCR 259 rel
error: Content is protected !!