AJK Council Service Tribunals Act, 1973 

  1. Section 3 — AJ&K Council Adaptation of Laws Act, 1979 — adaptation in AJ&K — Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973  — AJ&K Council (Adaptation and Validation) Act, 1998 — adaptation and validation of subsequent amendments in AJ&K made in the relevant Act and the Rules in Pakistan — Federal Service Tribunals Chairman & Member Service Rules, 1983 — expressions, ‘Government’, ‘Federal Government’, ‘President’ or any other expression howsoever worded,  referring to Executive Government — construed to refer AJ&K Council and Azad Jammu Kashmir etc — the amendments in these laws have been adapted and validated vide Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council(Adaptation and Validation) Act, 1998. Thus, from the statutory provision of section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Adaptation of Law Act, 1979, it is clear that in the Act, 1973, and the Rules the expressions ‘Government’, ‘Federal Government’, ‘President’, or any other expression howsoever worded, referring to any Executive Government, shall as far as practicable, be construed to refer to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council and reference to Pakistan or any part of Pakistan shall be construed to refer to Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Nargas Aftab Raja v. Accountant General & 5 others 2016 SCR 1480 (A)
  2. AJ&K Council (Adaptation and volidation) Act,1998 — Rule 5 — Federal Service Tribunals Chairman & Member Service Rules, 1983 — in view of this statutory provision, the term ‘in the service of Pakistan’ incorporated in Rule 5 of the Rules, 1983 shall be construed to refer ‘ in the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir’. Nargas Aftab Raja v. Accountant General & 5 others 2016 SCR 1480 (B)
  3. section 3(4) — Chairperson/Chairman — terms and conditions — to be determined by the President under the Rules— As in section the Act, 1973, no terms and conditions have been determined rather according to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, 1973, the terms and conditions have to be determined by the President through the Rules called the Federal Service Tribunal Chairman and Members Service Rules, 1983. Nargas Aftab Raja v. Accountant General & 5 others 2016 SCR 1480 (E) 
  4. —amendments in light of the judgment in case of Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq’s case—whereby certain provisions of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973, declared ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan— have not been made by AJK Council —whereas, in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and in the Service Tribunals Acts and Rules enforced in the provinces of Pakistan, the required amendments  have been made—the Council was under obligation to take necessary steps forthwith in light of the amendments made in the Federal Service Tribunals Act—  In the light of the judgment of the apex Court of Pakistan, the amendments have been made in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as well as the relevant Acts and Rules of the Provincial Service Tribunals even in the Service Tribunals Act/Rules of Gilgit Baltistan, but unfortunately the AJ&K Council failed to take the necessary steps in this regard in view of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Adaptation of Laws Act. AJK Council & others v. Raja Gul Muhammad & 6 others 2017 SCR 1427 (E)
  5. —termination of service of Members—new appointment of Members—contrary to amended provisions of Federal Tribunals Act/Rules and dictum laid down in judgment of Sh.Riaz-ul-Haq’s case—violative of law and against concept of independence of judiciary— So for as, the controversy involved in the present matter is concerned, it may be observed here that after enactment of the amended provisions in the Federal Service Tribunals Act/Rules, the modes adopted for both; termination of the respondents’ services and newly appointments, are contrary to the amended provisions of Federal Service Tribunals Act/Rules and also against the dictum laid down by the apex Court of Pakistan in Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq’s case (supra) and this Court in Khalid Gillani’s case (supra); thus, the same being violative of law and the concept of independence of judiciary cannot be given the legal cover. We do not agree with the view expressed by the learned High Court that authority was empowered to terminate the services of the respondents and no violation of law has been committed.  AJK Council & others v. Raja Gul Muhammad & 6 others 2017 SCR 1427 (G)
error: Content is protected !!