AJK Service Tribunals Act, 1975

  1. S. 2 — A civil servants who cases to be a civil servant is no more entitled to go to the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The only Course open for him is to get his grievance redressed by filing a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court is not precluded from exercising the jurisdiction if the same is justified according to law. Chairman M.D.A. Mirpur and 4 others v. Muhammad Ajmal Qureshi and another 1999 SCR 326 (A)
  2. S. 2 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Ss. 42, 44, 47. Dr. Ch. M. Akram Khan, Retired Director General, Health, Mirpur v. Azad Govt.  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 822 (A)
  3. S. 2 — Assessment — Retired civil servant — Remedy — There remain no ambiguity whether a person is holding the post or has been member of civil service (retired), for the redressal of grievance arising from any departmental order regarding the terms and conditions of service, has to approach the Service Tribunal through appeal. [Stance of appellant that in case of retired civil servant, jurisdiction of High Court is not ousted, was not acceptable. Supreme Court dismissed appeal]. Dr. Ch. M. Akram Khan, Retired Director General, Health, Mirpur v. Azad Govt. of the State of J&K, through  its Chief Secretary and 5 others  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 822 (B)
  4. Section 2 , clause (B) — sub-clauses (I), (ii) &(iii) — amended vide Act V of 2000 — civil servant — definition of — according to the definition assigned to the term “civil servant” in the special law, a person who is or has been a member of civil service of AJ&K in connection with the affairs of the Government or held/holds a civil post, is a civil servant — Held: according to the nature of the appointment order, the respondent does not fall in any of the exclusion clauses, thus, it can safely be held that for the purpose of availing remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal, the respondent falls in the definition of a civil servant.Asim Fareed v. M. Ramzan 2016 SCR 261 (B)
  5. S. 3 (2) — Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant including disciplinary matters. Azad Government & others  v. Raiz Ahmad 1995 SCR 159 (B).
  6. S. 3(3) — Word ‘Tribunal’ has been defined — Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and one member. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (B)
  7. Ss. 3(3) & (4) — A final appeal could be heard and decided by the Service Tribunal — Service Tribunal is consisting of Chairman and a member — A case could not be decided by a single member or Chairman — Any final decision on an appeal made by a single member render the judgment without lawful authority. M. Ramzan v. Superintendent of Police 2007 SCR 98 (A)
  8. Section 3(4) — chairman — terms and conditions — method for determination — section 3(4) deals with — sections 4-A and 4-B not holding field and deem repealed — for determination of terms and conditions of service of the Chairman Service Tribunal the statutory provisions of Service Tribunals Act, are of vital legal importance. Although in the impugned judgment of High Court, section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act has been reproduced but it appears that sections 4-A and 4-B referred to by the High Court are not holding the field. These provisions were previously part of the Ordinance which by operation of law has been deemed repealed. Presently, the statutory provision holding the field is sub-section 4 of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act. AJ&K Govt. & 2  others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (A)
  9. Section 3(4) — proviso — chairman — terms and conditions of — determination of — according to the statutory provision enforced dealing with the subject matter, the legislature has clearly expressed its intention that the terms and conditions of service of the Chairman Service Tribunal shall be determined by the rules and until the rules are made, the same shall be deemed to have been determined under the proviso of subsection 4 of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act. AJ&K Govt. & 2  others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (E)
  10. —Section 3(4), AJK Service Tribunals Act, 1975—No vacancy of Senior Member of the Service Tribunal provided in the Act, 1975—Two members of the Service Tribunal appointed through the same Notification in BPS-20 —None was appointed as Senior Member—One Member claimed himself as the Senior Member and write as such in judgements/orders—Held: No vacancy of Senior Member of the Service Tribunal has been provided in AJK Service Tribunal Act, 1975. The learned Member is not entitled to write himself as Senior Member of the Service Tribunal. Kousar Parveen v. Naila Aziz & others 2022 SCR 1351 (A)
  11. —Section 3 (4) (b) & (c)— AJ&K Service Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020— extension in the term of office of the Chairman and Members– tenure fixed expired prior to promulgation of subsequent legislation—condition of fixation of tenure attained finality as a transaction past and closed— the question of extension could not arise—retrospective effect has also not been given to the subsequent legislation expressly–held: in absence of express enactment or necessary intendment a statute cannot be applied retrospectively— extension in the services of Chairman and  Member declared illegal. Ashfaq Ahmed & another Versus Finance Department & 7 others 2021 SCR 248 (E) —Section 3 (4) (b) & (c)—AJ&K Service Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020— extension in the term of office of the Chairman and Members—effect of—clause (c) of section 3 (4) of Act was introduced through Ordinance—that President may extend the term of office of Chairman or Members—extension in term of the office of Chairman and a Member was made when the incumbents had already become functus officio—it was also provided that period commencing between the date of expiry of the term and resumption of office shall be treated as leave admissible under rules—held: under law leave can be sanctioned in favour of a person who is in service—after completion of the tenure the Chairman and the Member had already ceased to hold office; hence, such period could not be treated as leave admissible under rules— when the relevant offices had become vacant, extension could not be made, rather fresh process for appointments should have initiated. Ashfaq Ahmed & another Versus Finance Department & 7 others 2021 SCR 248 (C)
  12. S. 4 — Appeal lies against the order of a departmental authority — Appellant did not pray for vacation or modification of any order — Appeal suffers from legal defect. Sh. Muhammad yaqub v. AJ&K Council & others 1992 SCR 276 (B)
  13. S. 4 — Period allowed for filing an appeal with the Service Tribunal 180 days — Calculated by adding up the period of sixty days allowed for filing review petition, thirty days for filing appeal under section 4 and the waiting period of ninety days. Ch. Ghulam Nabi v. AJK Govt. & others 1993 SCR 72 (A)
  14. S. 4 — Limitation for filing appeal before the Service Tribunal is 120 days commencing from the date when departmental remedy is availed. Rehmat Ullah Zia v. Aziz–ud–Din Qureshi 1993 SCR 208 (C) PLD 1990 SC 692 rel.
  15. S. 4 — Departmental Authority — Means an authority which is competent to make an order regarding any terms and conditions of civil servants. (Words and pharases) Accountant General and others v. Zaman Hussain Khan 1993 SCR 259 (C)
  16. S. 4 — Refers to an authority competent to make an order in respect of any of the terms and conditions and does not have the effect  of laying down the condition that the authority must be competent to pass the particular order from which appeal has to be filed — The words “an order in respect of any terms and conditions” are words of liberal import and a restricted construction is not possible — Therefore, the liberal interpretation of the “Departmental authority” would include any authority which can pass an order in respect of any terms and conditions. (Words and pharases). Accountant General and others v. Zaman Hussain Khan 1993 SCR 259 (D)
  17. S. 4 — Appeal — A civil servant who is aggrieved by an original or appellate order made by a departmental authority, may prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal within thirty days from the communication of the order but there are four provisions to this main section. Asif Majeed v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi 1994 SCR 214 (A)
  18. S. 4, Proviso (A) — It lays down that no appeal shall lie unless two conditions are met – firstly that departmental appeal or representation has been filed and secondly that a period of ninety days has elapsed. There is no difference between the two conditions. If an appeal is maintainable in case condition for waiting for ninety days has been fulfilled the appeal must be treated to be valid if the other condition has been violated. Asif Majeed v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi 1994 SCR 214 (C)
  19. S. 4 — Service Tribunal is competent to hear only that appeal which has been filed after a period of ninety days has elapsed after the filing of the application for review or representation. — It is well settled principle of law that when a statute confers jurisdiction upon a Tribunal of a limited authority and statutory origin the conditions and qualifications annexed to it must be strictly applied. Asif Majeed v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi 1994 SCR 214 (F)
  20. S. 4, ‘Departmental Authority’ definition of — The expression includes an ‘auhtority’ other than Service Tribunal which is competent to make an order in respect of term and conditions of a civil servant — The impugned notification does not fall within the ambit of the expression ‘departmental authority’ as defined in explanation to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act — Such a notification would be deemed to be an ‘order’ of the departmental authority within the meaning of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. Azad Government and another v. Abdul Kabir Qureshi and others 1994 SCR 402 (B) 1991 SCMR 1041 ref. & relied.
  21. S. 4 — If an order of punishment is passed in respect of a civil servant he has a right of appeal to the Tribunal. The fact that a final order has not been passed so far does not vest jurisdiction in the High Court to interfere in a matter which is otherwise beyond its jurisdiction. Azad Government & others v. Raiz Ahmad 1995 SCR 159 (C)
  22. S. 4 — An appeal to the Service Tribunal lies against a particular order. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Service Tribunal was against an order which was temporary by its very nature and had ceased to exist when the appeal came up for hearing. Judgment of the Service Tribunal up-held — Appeal dismissed. Abdul Jabbar MIR v. Azad Govt. & another 1995 SCR 361 (A)
  23. S. 4 — Appeal — Limitation — Appeal can be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the order — Further period of 90 days can be added if appeal, review, etc. has been filed. M. Naseer Jahangiri v. Abdus Sami Khan 1997 SCR 26 (A) 1993 SCR 208, 1994 SCR 214 and 1984 PLC 561 relied.
  24. S. 4. Without filing an appeal to the Secretary Education an appeal to Service Tribunal would be incompetent. Javid Ahmad Khan v. Pervaiz Akhtar Abbasi and 5 others 1998 SCR 278 (B)
  25. S. 4 — An appeal to the Service Tribunal is not competent unless an aggrieved person has exhausted departmental remedy. Rehana Aziz v. Shakeela Ashraf and 2 others 1998 SCR 281 (C)
  26. S. 4 is applicable only if a candidate for promotion has been considered and question of his fitness has been determined according to law — Even if a civil servant is considered for promotion but is denied promotion in violation of law or on incorrect facts it cannot be said that he has no right of appeal. Abdul Karim and 5 others v. Muhammad Nisar and another 1998 SCR 296 (E)
  27. Under S. 4 — An appeal to the Service Tribunal can be filed by a civil servant against a final order made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service — Public Service Commission is not a departmental authority — The action which gave cause of action to the appellant was taken when the appellant was only a private citizen and was not a civil servant — The term “departmental authority” cannot include the PSC which deals with private citizens who aspire to become civil servants and has no nexus with civil servants. Munir Qadir v. Chairman P.S.C. and 4 others 2000 SCR 456 (A)
  28. S. 4 — Limitation — In absence of any oral or documentary evidence in support of the fact that copy of the impugned seniority list and promotion orders was communicated to the appellant, there is no jurisdiction to hold that the appeals were barred by limitation — U/s 4 limitation commence from the date of communication of the order to the aggrieved civil servant — The impugned seniority list was not circulated — The limitation against the seniority list shall commence from the date of knowledge. Tasneem Yaseen  v. Azad Govt. and 11 others 2002 SCR 167 (A)
  29. S. 4 – A civil servant who holds a civil post in the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or is employed in connection with the affairs of the State can raise his grievance in respect of his terms and conditions through an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Abdul Rashid v. Akmidc and 3 others 2002 SCR 530 (B)
  30. S. 4 — Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue direction — Jurisdiction conferred on the Service Tribunal is only against a final order — An appeal can be filed against final order of departmental authority pertaining to terms and conditions of service. Azad Government and 3 others v. Farhat Shaheen 2007 SCR 62 (A)
  31. S. 4 — Appeal to Service Tribunal — Appeal was filed against a letter issued by the Accounts Officer — It was reply of a letter — This letter cannot be said that it was a final order of the departmental authority — Therefore, in light of section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act appeal was not maintainable — It would also not be out of place to mention here that the basic order through which order regarding payment of advance increments was withdrawn has not been challenged — Held: It was enjoined upon the appellant to challenge the basic order whereby the advance increments were withdrawn — The appeal was not maintainable on this score. Zahid Hussain v. Accountant General and another 2009 SCR 6 (A)
  32. S. 4 — Final order — An order may be final if it determines the rights of parties and concludes the controversy — In the present case only the reply of a letter was challenged, which  neither determines the rights of parties nor concludes the controversy — Through this letter it was conveyed that some final order has been passed by the departmental authority — The aforesaid letter was not written by the departmental authority — It was written by the Accounts Officer — Therefore, the Service Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal. Zahid Hussain v. Accountant General and another 2009 SCR 6 (D)
  33. S. 4 — Respondent withdrew her appeal from the Service Tribunal on 29.5.2007 — An application was made before Service Tribunal for amending the said order — Service Tribunal without notice to appellant or official respondents amended the order — At the back of appellant — The appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal on 1.12.2008 against order dated 25.7.2008 — Objection raised that P.L.A. is time-barred — Appellant also filed separate application for condonation of delay, wherein she stated that one week prior to filing of P.L.A. the fact of amending the order came in her knowledge — Application is supported by an affidavit — No counter affidavit filed — Held: When the order has been passed at the back of appellant without notice or summoning her or the official respondents then there is no question that she was in knowledge of impugned order — Held further: The delay sufficiently explained — Objection overruled — Appeal held within time. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid and 4 others 2009 SCR 333 (A)
  34. S. 4 — Any civil servant aggrieved from any final order whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority in respect of any of terms and conditions of his service may within ninety days of the communication of such order or within six months of the establishment of appropriate Tribunal prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. A. Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. 2009 SCR 400 (A)
  35. S. 4 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976), S. 2(1)(B)(ii). Zafar Iqbal v. Secretary Education of AJ&K (Colleges), Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir  2012 SCR 378
  36. — S. 4 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Azad Government, Muzaffarabad v. Nighat Afza Bukhari, Associate Professor, Govt. Girls College Dadyal 2013 SCR 1003
  37. Section 4 — right of appeal before Service Tribunal — Any civil servant aggrieved of any final order whether original or appellate made by an authority in respect of terms and conditions of his service may prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal.  The appeal is competent only against a final order adversely affecting the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Raeesa Mustafa  v. AJ&K Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 165 (A)
  38. Section 4 — term ‘final order’ — its scope — right of appeal — the use of the terms ‘final order’ in section 4 seems to be that if the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant are finally determined and controversy is concluded, he may file an appeal from such order. Held; any order which determines the rights of the parties and concludes the controversy so far as a particular authority or forum is concerned, notwithstanding that such an order may opened to challenge in appeal etc., is a final order. Raeesa Mustafa  v. AJ&K Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 165 (B)
  39. S. 4 — service matter — Writ — its maintainability — jurisdiction — controversy raised in the writ petition pertains to the promotion of a Civil Servant which admittedly is one of the terms and condition of the Service — If any civil servant is aggrieved of any final order passed against him whether appellate or original, he has a right to file appeal in the Service Tribunal, but the appellant failed to avail the remedy of proper forum. S. Rashed H. Shah v. Azad Govt. 2014 SCR 883 (A)
  40. S. 4 — service appeal — writ — its maintainability — a civil servant aggrieved of by an order whether appellate or original may file appeal in the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days.  If the representation of the appellant was not decided he should have filed the appeal in the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days, but he failed to do so. Held: he is not entitled to get relief from the High Court in writ jurisdiction. Syed Rashed H. Shah v. Azad Govt. 2014 SCR 883 (H)
  41. Section  4 — Appeal — under the provision of section 4 the right of appeal is provided against the final order passed by the departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of an aggrieved civil servant. Muhammad Nazir v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2015 SCR 393 (A)
  42. Section 4 — un-amended — appeal before Service Tribunal — limitation of — under the proviso ‘a’ to sub-section (1) of un-amended section 4, an aggrieved civil servant had no right to file direct appeal in the Service Tribunal. The right of appeal was based upon a condition that if a right of an appeal, review or representation before the departmental authority under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 or any rule made there under was available, firstly he shall avail the remedy of appeal, review or representation before the departmental authority and if the appeal, review or representation is not decided within 90 days, then he may file appeal in the Service Tribunal within 30 days. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJK 2015 SCR 744 (B) 1996 SCR 382  ref.
  43. Section 4 — amendment — deletion of proviso — Its effect — The proviso was omitted through an amendment on 1st February, 1999. The effect of deletion/omission of the said proviso was considered in the case reported as Muhammad Riaz Khan vs. Inspector  General of Police and 19 others [2010 SCR 131] and it was concluded It was concluded that if a person is aggrieved from the original order he may file appeal in the Service Tribunal from the same within 90 days and if a person is aggrieved from the appellate order then he may file appeal in the Service Tribunal within 90 days from the appellate order, when it is conveyed. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (C&D)
  44. Section 4 — Civil Servants Act, 1976 — Section 21 — Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules,1991 — Under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975, a right has been conferred upon an aggrieved civil servant for filing appeal; whether he is aggrieved from the original order or the appellate order — There is no doubt that the appeal from the original order may be filed within a period of 90 days, when the order is conveyed to an aggrieved civil servant — A right has been conferred upon a civil servant to prefer an appeal, representation or apply for review in respect of any order affecting the terms and conditions of service before the authority within 60 days under section 21 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976 and the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (E)
  45. Section 4 — limitation for — appeal to Service Tribunal — against departmental order on appeal, representation or review — when period prescribed for decision — under section 21 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976 and under the departmental rules a civil servant has a right to file appeal, representation or review but if he prefers to file appeal in the Service Tribunal then he is entitled to file appeal within 90 days, from the original order. When an aggrieved civil servant files appeal, representation or review in the light of section 21 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976 where no period is prescribed for decision of the said matter, no other interpretation can be assigned to sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975 that after the decision of the said matter by the appellate authority, appeal may be filed within 90 days whether the appeal is accepted or dismissed. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (I) 2010 SCR 131 rel.
  46. Section 4 — jurisprudence and legislative history of — effects upon remedy of judicial appeal — deletion of proviso (A) (B) — a study of the legislative history of the statutory provision of section 4 of Act, 1975. The proposition came under consideration before the full Bench of this Court in Shabbir Ahmed vs. AJK Government & another [1996 SCR 382]. Thereafter, this statutory provision once again came under consideration of the High Court in a case reported as Kh. Abdul Qayyum vs.  Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. through its Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and another [PLJ 1998 AJK 15], in which the spirit of the principle of law enunciated in Shabbir Ahmed’s case [1996 SCR 382] is followed in letter and spirit and ultimately proviso (A) and (B) of section 4 of Act, 1975, were declared unconstitutional as adversely affecting the remedy of judicial appeal provided to the civil servants before the Service Tribunal. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (K)  1996 SCR 382 & PLJ 1998 AJK 15 ref.
  47. Section 4 — legislative debates — for amendment — This legislative development as a result of the implementation of the superior Courts judgments is clearly proved from the official report of the proceeding of legislative assembly meeting held on 6th January, 1999, published as volume 15, part 1 of مباحثات, wherein the Minister Law, Justice, Parliamentary Affairs & Human Rights, Department has clearly referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment while introducing  the amendment bill i.e ‘The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998’ in the Legislative Assembly. Thus, it requires no more deliberation that the wisdom expressed in the supra referred judgments converted into intention of the legislature. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (L)
  48. Section 4, AJ&K Service Tribunal Act,1975 — appeal — judicial remedy — section 21, AJ&K Civil Servants acts, 1976 — domestic, departmental remedy — comparison and effects of both — it is crystal clear that remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal is a judicial remedy in furtherance of the constitutional provisions. Whereas the remedy of appeal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as Act, 1976) and the Rules made thereunder, is of domestic, departmental and administrative nature which can neither be equated with the judicial remedy nor the judicial remedy can be subjected to such administrative, domestic, executive type of proceedings. Otherwise, it will amount to make the judicial remedy subservient to the executive and administrative decisions, which concept has been declared as against the spirit of constitutional provisions through the above referred final judgments and the legislation made in compliance of these judgments. Same like, the provision of section 4 (1) of Act, 1975 which carries out the constitutional spirit will become subservient to the departmental remedy which can surely neither be the intention of legislature nor spirit of law. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (M)
  49. Section 4 — amended provision — interpretation — right of appeal — not two options — available to a civil servant aggrieved from original order — there is only one option of appeal before the Service Tribunal for the civil servant who is aggrieved from the original order. Same like in case of appellate order right of appeal lies in favour of the civil servant who is aggrieved from the appellate order and not one whose grievance has arisen from the original order. This conclusion has been drawn by the full bench of this Court which is also consistent with the spirit of law as is evident from the phraseology ‘any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether the original or appellate’. This phraseology is not substitute of the original and appellate. Hence, the phraseology of the statutory provision does not admit two options of right of appeal for a civil servant. If it would have the intention of legislature, it should have been expressed by using the phraseology ‘original and appellate’ as already expressed by this Court in sub para (C) para 13 of Shabbir Ahmed’s case, supra. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (P)
  50. Section 4 — appeal to Service Tribunal — from final order — not from departmental/appellate order —  judicial remedy not subservient to departmental remedy — The term ‘aggrieved by any final order’ is of much importance. The right of appeal before the Service Tribunal is qualified with the grievance of a civil servant from the final order. Thus, the moment, a final order through which a civil servant is aggrieved is communicated, a right of appeal vests in him and he can seek the judicial remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal. This remedy is not subservient or qualified with the departmental, domestic remedy of appeal. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (Q)
  51. Section 4 — amendment — main object of — expeditious disposal of civil servants’ matters — The main reason behind the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 1/1999 is expeditious disposal of the disputes relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the civil servants. This Court has ascertained the intention of the legislature in sub para (A) to (E) of para 13 of Shabbir Ahmed’s case reproduced hereinabove. The same spirit  and wisdom has   subsequently been borrowed  by the High Court in  Kh.Abdul Qayyum’s case [PLJ 1998 AJ&K 15] which ultimately gave birth to Amendment Ordinance, 1998 and subsequently Act, 1/1999. This Court has already clearly interpreted the statutory provisions in this regard in sub para (A) to (E) para 13 in Shabbir Ahmed’s case supra and also unambiguously observed that: “Had the Legislature intended that a civil servant would be at liberty to prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal even after an order on his appeal, representation or review by the departmental authority, it would have said so in the statute.” Thus, the purpose of legislation of Act, 1/1999 can be expressed in a single sentence i.e ‘expeditious disposal of the civil servant’s matters’. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (R)  1996  SCR 382 & PLJ 1998 AJK 15 ref.
  52. Section 4 — appeal — limitation — amendment — legislative  developments — enhancement  of  period  of  limitation  in  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  4 of  Act, 1975. Originally, the limitation for filing appeal was provided as 30 days which has been substituted by 90 days. In the background of the referred legislative developments, the intention of legislature is clear whereby while carrying out the judgments of the superior constitutional Courts, treating the remedy of appeal, review or representation by the departmental authority  as a domestic, executive and departmental  remedy, the period of limitation has been enhanced just to provide breathing space to the administrative authorities to rectify the wrongs and protect the civil servants from the unnecessary litigation or  approaching for the judicial remedy from the Service Tribunal. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (T)
  53. Section 4 — Police Act, 1861 and Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1992 — Police force — Appeal to the Service Tribunal — The members of police force are governed by Police Act, 1861 and Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1992, but they are civil servants for limited purpose of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act — Under section 4 any aggrieved civil servant may file appeal in the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days either from original or appellate order. Gulfraz Ahmed v.  DIG Police & others 2015 SCR 1240(B)
  54. Section 4 — appeal to Service Tribunal — limitation — If a civil servant is aggrieved from original order he has a right to file appeal in the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days and if he filed an appeal, review or representation and the same is not decided within a period of 90 days, it is enjoined upon the civil servant, as of right, to file appeal within 90 days from the original order — The appeal filed beyond the period of 90 days in such cases shall be deemed to be filed beyond the period of limitation. Gulfraz Ahmed  v.  DIG Police & others 2015 SCR 1240 (C) Javaid Ejaz vs. Authority & 3 others (Civil  Appeal No. 192/ 2014 decided on 5.5.2015) ref.   
  55. Section 4 — appeal — maintainability — Under the provisions of section 4 the appeal before the Service Tribunal is only competent when a civil servant is aggrieved from any final order — When the order is not creating any grievance, the civil servant cannot be deemed aggrieved from such order for the purpose of appeal. AJK Govt. v. Gohr-ur-Rehman & others 2015 SCR 1306 (A)
  56. Section 4 — appeal before Service Tribunal — limitation — A civil servant is obliged to approach for judicial remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days of final order from which he is aggrieved. Shoukat Hussain v. D.I.G Police & others 2015 SCR 1311(A)
  57.  Section 4 — An appeal can be filed by a civil servant against a final order wherein his terms and conditions of service are adversely affected — A civil servant, who is not qualified to be promoted, has no right to file an appeal against the promotion order of another civil servant. Raja Azhar Iqbal Khan v. Andleeb Saher Butt & 9 others 2016 SCR 637 (B) 1993 SCR 70 & Tariq Zia Abbasi vs. Speaker AJ&K Legislative Assembly & others (Civil PLA No. 109/2015, decided on 10.2.2016 rel.
  58. Section 4 — If a civil servant is aggrieved from the final order, whereby his terms and conditions of service are affected, he may file an appeal in the Service Tribunal. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Hadayat Ullah Khan 2016 SCR 688 (A)
  59. Section 4 — appeals before Tribunal — a civil servant aggrieved by any final order made by the departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may file appeal —  Appellant not eligible to be appointed against the post of B-20— He was not qualified to be promoted in the light of the relevant rules, therefore, he is not an aggrieved and cannot file appeal. Mirza Ejaz Hussain v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2016 SCR 784 (A) 1993 SCR 70, Tariq Zia Abbasi vs. Speaker AJ&K Legislative Assembly and others (Civil PLA No.109 of 2015), decided on 10.02.2016 & Raja Azhar Iqbal vs. Andleeb Saher Butt and others (Civil Appeal No.67 of 2015), decided  on   01.03.2016)    rel.
  60. Section 4 — appeals — limitation — A civil servant may file an appeal in the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days from final order, whether original or appellate—If a civil servant is aggrieved from the original order, he may file appeal within a period of 90 days. Gulzar Hussain v. Ch. Abdul Aziz & 6 others 2016 SCR 742 (A) 2015 SCR 744 rel.
  61. Section 4 — appeal before Service Tribunal — limitation of — if any civil servant is aggrieved of any final order passed against him, whether appellate or original, he has a right to file appeal in the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days. I.G. Police & 4 others v. Muhammad Shahbaz 2016 SCR 1119 (A) 2015 SCR 744 & 2014 SCR 883 rel.
  62. Section 4 — appeal — its competency — any civil servant aggrieved by any final order may file appeal in the Service Tribunal. held: any order which finally determines the rights of a party and concludes the controversy so far as a particular forum is concerned, is a final order. Syed Rasheed Hussain v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2016 SCR 1327 (A)
  63. Section 4 — appeal — competency of — The appointment against a vacant post as Incharge is neither a promotion, nor a final order — appeal not competent. Syed Rasheed Hussain v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2016 SCR 1327 (C)
  64. —Section 4—appeal—Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue direction—Only High Court can issue direction  in appropriate cases—up-gradation of posts—In the present case, admittedly, the grievance of the appellants, herein, relates to the up-gradation of their posts and the refusal could have been made only by the authority.  Moreover, as a direction for up-gradation of the posts was solicited by the appellants, herein, which was not within the jurisdictional competence of the Service Tribunal. A direction can be given only by the High Court in appropriate cases. Raja Khalil Ibrahim & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 1476 (A)
  65. —Section 4—appeal—lies only against the final order of the authority— By now, law is well settled that where no final order has been passed by the departmental authority then a civil servant cannot approach the Service Tribunal in vacuum. In the present case, the matter was sent to the Secretary Finance for concurrence and in case of refusal the concerned Secretary/department was bound to submit the proposal to the cabinet under the Rules of Business, 1985. Raja Khalil Ibrahim & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 1476 (B)  NLR 1982 Service 110, PLD 1997 SC 382, 2016 SCMR 859 & 2000 SCR 456 rel.
  66. —Section 4—appeal before Service Tribunal—limitation—held: the civil servant has to file the appeal before the Service Tribunal within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of order aggrieved from, irrespective of the fact whether any departmental appeal, representation or review is awaiting disposal or not. Khalida Shaheen v. Azad Govt. & others  2017 SCR 1294 (A)
  67. —Section 4—Appeal before Service Tribunal—-against final order Respondent was transferred—Transfer order dated 28.4.2010 was regularized vide notification dated 27.7.2010—Service Tribunal rightly observed that the said notification has not been challenged— Held: as the final order of promotion has not been challenged in the appeal, therefore, the appeal before the Service Tribunal against the notification dated 28.4.2010 was not competent. Tanveer-ul-Haq Shaheen v.                Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1059 (A)  
  68.                 S.4— appeal—limitation—computation of—running from—Held:- “According to the statutory provisions of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975, the limitation in service appeals is computed from the date of knowledge and not from the date of passing the order. Moreover, the limitation is mixed question of law and facts. The appellant has averred in the memo of appeal that he got knowledge of the impugned order on 02.03.2016, whereas in rebuttal neither any notice was served upon the respondents nor any written statement have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In this state of affairs, the dismissal of appeal in limine is not proper course of law, because such like questions can only be resolved after providing a proper opportunity to the parties to bring on record the requisite proofs”. Javed Iqbal v. D.G Local Govt. & others 2017 SCR 731
  69. —Section 4—limitation for filing appeal—Service Tribunal dismissed appeal on the point of limitation—on appeal the Court—held: according to the facts of the case s determined from the record and plead by the appellant himself, his grievance relates to the notification dated 1st December, 2010, whereby his due right of promotion has not been given and feeling aggrieved he filed departmental appeal within the limitation, which was rejected by the authority vide order dated 28.5.2013, against which the appeal was filed in the Service Tribunal on 7.11.2013. Prima facie, the appeal is time barred. This proposition came under consideration of this Court in a number of cases, firstly in case reported as Shabir Ahmed Vs. Azad Government & others [1996 SCR 382] but finally once again this matter has been considered by this Court in the case titled Mirza Ejaz vs. Authority under AJ&K & others [2015 SCR 744], whereby it has been concluded that a civil servant has to file appeal before the Service Tribunal within 90 days of the order from which he is aggrieved. Doctor Allah Reham Khokhar v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 673
  70. —Section 4, proviso, —determination of fitness for promotion by Selection Board— embargo was imposed upon Service Tribunal that the fitness determined by the Selection Board cannot be questioned before the Service Tribunal—after amendment made in the S.4 in the year 1997—now determination of fitness—made by Selection Board can be challenged and the Service Tribunal is bound to take into consideration as to whether the Selection Board has properly appreciated the ACRs, service record, qualification and other necessary aspects required for promotion—eligibility and fitness—jurisdiction of Service Tribunal—the question of eligibility is different from question of fitness and where eligibility is involved—Held:the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to go into the recommendations made by the Selection Board or the decision of the competent Authority. Engineer Altaf Ahmed vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 1309 (A) PLD 1994 SC 539 ref
  71. —Section 4—appeal by person not party below–Limitation—the person, not party in the case, can file appeal competently within a reasonable time. Secretary Higher Education & others v.Kishwar Anjum Abbasi 2019 SCR 617 (A) 1997 SCR 26 ref
  72.    Section 4—appeal before Service Tribunal—limitation–appeal competent within 90 days of impugned departmental order-admittedly the controversy arises out of the orders of reinstatement the appellants dated 30.03.2012 and 02.04.2012, which were challenged by them before the Service Tribunal by filing appeals almost after the period of six years. Held: The Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeals in limine on the ground of limitation. Altaf Hussain v. Inspector General of  Police 2019 SCR 548 (A) 
  73. —section 4—limitation for filing appeal before Service Tribunal—90 days—limitation to start from communication of impugned departmental order—under the provisions of section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, the appellant should have challenged the impugned departmental order within 90 days from the communication of the same before the Service Tribunal. Sheikh Ahtaram-ul-Ibrar v. Administrator District Council Muzaffarabad & others 2019 SCR 861 (A) 
  74. —Section 4— Service appeal — Limitation— the limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal shall be computed from the date of order aggrieved from, whether original or appellate, irrespective of pendency of any departmental appeal/representation. Muhammad Munir v. I.G Police & others 2019 SCR 59 (A)
  75. —Section 4—word communication—interpretation of–word ‘communication’ used in section 4 has to be applied and construed according to the facts and circumstances of each case–where rule or law require any order to be communicated personally, such order shall be deemed communicated on personal service—where rule or law require any order to be published in the official gazette, such order shall be deemed communicated on the date of its publication. Tabasam Ashraf v. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. & 4 others 2020 SCR 127 (D)
  76.  —Section 4—appeal—competency of vires of Rules challenged—appellant challenged vires of Rules when no adverse order was issued nor the Rules were interpreted or applied to the disadvantage—Held: the appeal was premature—Syed Zahoor Hussain Shah v. AJK Govt. 2020 SCR 131 (A) PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 153 ref
  77.  —S.4—Appeal to Service Tribunal—legality and correctness of an appointment order—maintainability of appeal before the Service Tribunal Challenging the legality and correctness of an appointment order is not competent. Junaid Ahmed v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2020 SCR 351 (A)
  78. —section 4—appeal—remedy of appeal is only available against any final order of the authority adversely affecting the terms & conditions of service—if any discrimination has been made by the department or authority failed to act according to law, then the remedy can be sought in writ jurisdiction to act according to law— Jawad Sabir & 5 others v. Inspector General of Police & 5 others 2020 SCR 545 (A).
  79. —Section 4—appeal—seniority list— limitation in service matters starts from the communication of impugned order — preparation of seniority list by an incompetent authority does not make the limitation to run against a party until and unless it is proved that the same was communicated to the party. Raja Abdul Rasheed                v. Director Planning & others 2022 SCR 518 (A) 2002 SCR 167 rel
  80. —Section 4—matter of term and condition of service—writ–maintainability of—a civil servant who holds a civil post in the service of AJ&K or is employed in connection with the affairs of the Govt., can raise his grievance in respect of his terms and conditions through an appeal before the Service Tribunal—promotion is one of the terms and conditions of service —under law, the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction. Shahzaada Mughal v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 572 (A) 2014 SCR 883 ref
  81. —Section 4—limitation for filing appeal—ninety days— any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority, in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may within ninety days of the communication of such order to him, prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal. Muhammad Qadeer v. Minister of Revenue Deptt. & others 2022 SCR 1426 (A)
  82. —Section 4— the Service Tribunal has been vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals against final orders in respect of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Secretary Finance Deptt. &others v. Muhammad Rizwan Abbasi & others 2022 SCR 1387 (D) PLD 1980 SC (AJK) 5 rel.
  83. —Section 4—Vires of rules—challenge to—held: the appellants challenged the rules but same have not been interpreted against the appellants or to disadvantage them. The appeal is competent only when an order was passed regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. There is no provision existed in the AJK Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules 1991 or AJK Service Tribunal Act, 1974, to the effect that the departmental rules could be challenged even if the same were not interpreted to disadvantage of a civil servant. Rashid Aftab & others v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2022 SCR 1598 (I) 2020 SCR 131, rel
  84. —Section 4—a civil servant is competent to prefer an appeal, if he is found to be an aggrieved person. Muhammad Iqbal & others v. I. G Police & others 2022 SCR 1679 (A) 1993 SCR 70 ref.
  85. — section 4 — a civil servant in appeal, has to satisfy the Court that his/her terms & conditions of service have adversely been affected — if he/she fails to point out any violation of terms conditions of his/her service, then legally he/she has no cause of action. Ch. Muhammad Shoukat versus Shehryar Aslam & others 2023 SCR 700 (A)
  86. — section 4 — appeal before Tribunal — maintainability of — Transfer & posting — respondent posted from the office of Building Division MZD against the post of Leave Reserve in the office of Chief Engineer PWD Highways (North) — both the institutions situate within the limits of Municipal Corporation — even the offices are also in the same block/building — held the notification impugned is not a transfer notification rather it is an adjustment — it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that through the said notification, the terms & conditions of respondent have been affected adversely — thus held: respondent does not fall within the definition of an aggrieved civil servant and had no locus standi to file an appeal before Service Tribunal.  Ch. Muhammad Shoukat versus Shehryar Aslam & others 2023 SCR 700 (B & C) Syed Amjad Hussain Shah v. Azad Govt. & others (civil PLA No.32/14, decided on 20.01.2015), Muhd. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Secretary Works and Communication Deptt. & others (Civil PLA No. 09/2013, decided on 20.06.2013) & 2017 SCR 282 ref.
  87.  — Section 4 — service appeal — notification dated 30.12.2022 — transfer from CMH to AIMS & vice versa challenged — held: under section 4, in appeal, a civil servant has to satisfy the Court that his/her terms & conditions of service have adversely been affected — if a civil servant fails to point out any violation of terms & conditions, then legally, he/she has got no cause of action — respondent transferred from CMH MZD to AIMS MZD also remained attached with CMH — neither his terms & conditions of service including pay etc. have been affected nor he has been posted out of Municipal limits, thus no terms and conditions of service, have adversely been affected by notification dated 30.12.2022. Dr. Aftab Ahmed vs Dr. Imran Khan & others 2024 SCR 229 (C)
  88. S. 4 (A) — The language used by the law maker is prohibitory in nature — The words ‘no appeal shall lie’ are the words of command and are mandatory in nature and its violation cannot be condoned. Asif Majeed v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi 1994 SCR 214 (E)
  89. S. 4 (A) & (B) amended on 2.1.1999 — Now a civil servant can invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal directly without first availing the departmental remedy. Ashfaq Ahmed v. Azad Govt. and 3 others 2002 SCR 138 (A)
  90. S. 4(B) — Appeal bar of — An appeal against the order of withholding or refusing to allow move-over to the next higher scale is not barred.Dr.M. Sharif Chattar v. Azad Govt.1993 SCR 129 (A)
  91. S. 4(1) — Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order can file an appeal before the appropriate tribunal. Dr. Abdul Ghaffar Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2008 SCR 230 (A)
  92. Section 4(1)(A) — The mere fact that the respondent had exercised the right of review by way of departmental remedy does not debar the appellant to file a review petition against the order by which he was aggrieved, especially so when he was not impleaded as a party in the review petition filed by respondent No.2. Therefore, the appellant was within his rights to file a review for the redressal of his grievance and the view expressed by the Tribunal to the contrary is not correct. Shabir Ahmad v. AJK Government and another 1996 SCR 382 (A)
  93. S. 4(1)(A) — Limitation — No two options available to file appeal — Either to file appeal within 120 days or to wait indefinitely till the disposal of his appeal, review, representation etc. and thereafter prefer appeal to the Tribunal. Held: He is bound to prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal within 120 days reckoned from the date of filing appeal etc. to the departmental authority. Reasons stated in the text of the judgment. Shabir Ahmad v. AJK Govt. 1996 SCR 382 (B)
  94. S. 4(1)(A) — If an adverse order is passed against a civil servant and he files appeal, revision etc. he cannot wait till outcome of the appeal or revision — He has to challenge the original order within a period of one hundred twenty days. Zareen Shah v. I.G. Police 2000 SCR 305 (A)
  95. S. 4 (1)(B) A case in which a person has not been considered fit for promotion can file a representation appellant having not exhausted the departmental remedy was debarred to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal in light of the proviso (A) of section 4(1) of the Act. Muhammad Bashir Khan v. I.G. Police & others 1993 SCR 241 (C)
  96. S. 4 (B) — If a civil servant is found unfit to be promoted and the departmental authority/Selection Committee determines the fitness of another civil servant to be promoted, any appeal or review against the order determining the fitness or otherwise of a person shall not be competent. M. Fayyaz Khan v. Speaker, AJ&K legislative Assembly & another 2001 SCR 505 (B)
  97. S. 4 & 5 — Appeal against departmental authority — Tribunal can vary, set aside or modify an order passed by a departmental authority–which term include the Govt./AJ&K Council -Service Tribunal enjoys all powers which are vested in the departmental authorities. Muhammad Azad Khan v. The Secretary AJK Council 1993 SCR 387 (G)
  98. S. 5 — Date of promotion can be changed by the Service Tribunal if the case is made out that the terms and conditions of service are involved in the fixation of date. Muhammad Azad Khan v. The Secretary AJK Council 1993 SCR 387 (K)
  99. S. 5 — The Service Tribunal possesses all the powers of a civil Court. Ch. Sadiq Ali v. The Chief Secetary A.J.K Government 1995 SCR 325 (A)
  100. S. 5 — Service Tribunal has only power to set aside, vary or modify an order appeal against and not to issue direction to amend the rules. Basharat Hussain and 4 others v. Muhammad Imtiaz Khan and 3 others 2002 SCR 399 (B)
  101. S. 5 — Appeal to Service Tribunal challenging the departmental rules was not competent — Tribunal could go into the vires of the departmental rules if the same were discriminatory. Basharat Hussain and 4 others v. Muhammad Imtiaz Khan and 3 others 2002 SCR 399 (C)
  102. S. 5 — Service Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Rules amending of — Held: Section 5 does not postulate any direction to Government for amending the departmental rules. Basharat Hussain and 4 others v. Muhammad Imtiaz Khan and 3 others 2002 SCR 399 (D)
  103. S. 5 — The Service Tribunal can confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order — In instant case the Service Tribunal has set aside the orders dated 17.11.2001 and 15.5.2002. Which was well in sphere allotted to it under law. IG. of Police v. M. Azam Khan and others 2008 SCR 562 (D)
  104. Section 5 — para 3 of 2nd schedule — rule 8 of the AJ&K Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1976 — Order I rule 3, CPC — service appeal — necessary parties — in every memorandum of appeal the competent authority shall be shown as the first respondent and thereafter all the parties to the dispute shall be shown as respondents — the Service Tribunal for the purpose of deciding appeals is vested with the powers of Civil Court and order I rule 3 CPC provides that who may be joined as defendants — Held: a person can be arrayed as defendant/respondent in the (service)appeals against whom, any right or relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist. Samina Kabir v. Shamim Akhtar & 7 others 2014 SCR 223 (A)
  105. Section 5 — Jurisdiction for issuance of directions — Held: according to the provision of section 5, the Service Tribunal may on appeal, confirm, set-aside, vary or modify the order appealed against but cannot issue such kind of directions. M. Sabeel v. M. Altaf 2015 SCR 430 (B) 2007 SCR 62 & (Jamila Begum v. Azad  Govt. & others Civil appeal  No. 2006  of 2013, decided on 11.4.2014) rel.
  106. S. 5 (I) Powers of Tribunal — Co-related to an order which is challenged before it and not independent of it. Sh. M. Yaqub v. AJ&K Council & others 1992 SCR 276 (C)
  107. S. 5(2) — This provision gives all the powers of a civil Court to the Service Tribunal Since the words “for the purpose of deciding any appeal” have been used by legislature, the question is whether the powers of a Tribunal come to an end when decision of an appeal has been announced by the Tribunal or they continue to be available to it even after that. Held: In answering this question two considerations must be kept in mind: Firstly rule 28 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules and secondly the principle that where an Act confers jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the powers of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution, keeping these two in mind the Word “for the purpose of deciding any appeal” cannot be given restricted meaning — There is another aspect which must be considered if the order of the Service Tribunal cannot be implemented by that Tribunal even when it has been upheld by this Court in appeal then the whole legislation becomes futile. Ch. Sadiq Ali  v. The Chief Secetary A.J.K Government 1995 SCR 325 (C)
  108. S. 5(2) — Provisions of Civil Procedure Code being applicable in service matters, the Service Tribunal was not debarred from issuing the direction that post in question be filled in by re-advertising the same and inviting fresh applications. Saiqa Bibi v. Secretary Education and 7 others 2001 SCR 500 (A)
  109. S. 5(2) — The provisions of C.P.C. being applicable in service matters, the Service Tribunal was not debarred from issuing the direction that post be filled in by re-advertising the same and inviting fresh applications. Mst. SAIQA BIBI v. SECRETARY EDUCATION 2002 SCR 325 (A)
  110. S. 6 — Chairman of Tribunal may constitute a single or a division Bench — An appeal can be heard by a single or a Division Bench — It is the discretion of Chairman to constitute a single or a Division Bench for hearing of appeals. A. Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. 2009 SCR 400 (C)
  111. S. 6 — Contains that Chairman of Tribunal may constitute a single or a Division Bench for hearing appeals — If simple meanings are given to the words used — Then it is clear that a single or Division Bench can hear appeals. A. Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (L)
  112. S. 6 — Reveals that single Bench can hear appeals and no proceedings conducted by single member shall be illegal despite the fact that definition of Tribunal is that it shall consist of a Chairman and one member. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (N)
  113. S. 6 — The Chairman of Tribunal may constitute single or Division Bench for hearing of appeals — Under rule 10 an appeal can be fixed for hearing before a Bench — Which means a Bench consisting of a single member or a Tribunal. A. Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. 2009 SCR 400 (P)
  114. S. 6(4) — The powers and procedure of the Tribunal are laid down in the Act and the rules made thereunder  — For purpose of conducting the business of Service Tribunal the Act has provided a particular method. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid and 4 others 2009 SCR 333 (B)
  115. S. 6(5) — Contains that the Tribunal shall consist of Chairman and one member — No proceedings of Tribunal shall be rendered illegal and ineffective simply for the reason that such proceedings were taken by a single member or Chairman — If proceedings have been taken by the Chairman or one member alone — Then it shall not render such proceedings ineffective despite the fact that the Tribunal comprises of a Chairman and one member — Proceedings can be conducted by single member. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (M)
  116. S. 8 — Appeal — Fundamental requirement of — Mandatory rules for — Appellant has not impleaded Hon’ble Judges of the High Court as respondent but impleaded Registrar as one of the respondents — Registrar cannot be a substitute for the High Court — Violation of mandatory rules entails the dismissal of appeal. R. M. Ashraf Khan Kayani v. AJK Govt. 1997 SCR 389 (C)
  117. R.8 — Appeal — If an order adversely effecting the interest of party has been passed by a competent authority that authority must be impleaded.as a real respondent. Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani v. AJK Govt. and 4 others 1997 SCR 389 (E)
  118. Appeal — An appeal lies to the Service Tribunal if a final order in respect of terms and conditions has been passed-Publication of advertisement-Adverse order-Departmental remedy-Appeal. Muhammad Riaz & others v. Azad Government & others 1994 SCR 82 (A)
  119. A tribunal set up under the Service Tribunal Act is only authorised to set aside order in which an appeal is brought before it and it has no suo moto powers to re-open past and closed transaction. Rehmat Ullah Zia  v. Aziz–ud–Din Qureshi  1993 SCR 208 (A)
  120. Appeal has to be filed within the period allowed by law — The date on which appeal is filed is included while computing the period of filing of appeal — The date on which the judgment is pronounced is to be excluded but it is no where provided that the date on which the appeal is filed is also to be excluded. Ch. Ghulam Nabi v. AJ&K Government & others 1993 SCR 72 (B)
  121. Though certain unnecessary restrictions and technicalities are attached to the exercise of powers by the Service Tribunal, yet these powers are much wider than the powers of High Court which it may exercise in writ jurisdiction. Accountant Gen. and others v. Zaman H. Khan 1993 SCR 259 (F)
  122. Provision to a section — Its legal effect — The legal effect of a proviso is that is controls, modifies and overrides, the main section. Asif Majeed v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi 1994 SCR 214 (B)
  123. Argument that if an appeal which has been filed before the expiry of waiting period comes up for hearing before the expiry of that period it will have to be dismissed but if it comes up for hearing after the expiry of that period it will be treated maintainable and will not operate on its own strength — Argument repelled. Asif Majeed v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi 1994 SCR 214 (D)
  124. Appeal by a person not a party in Court below — Aggrieved person — Filing of appeal in this Court — If a person is not a party before the High Court or Service Tribunal but feels aggrieved by a judgment — He can file appeal in this Court — Fresh cause of action. Muhammad Naseer Jahangiri and 13 others v. Abdus Sami Khan & another 1997 SCR 26 (B)   
  125. Although Service Tribunal enjoys the powers of a civil Court yet this does not imply that all provisions contained in C.P.C. are applicable to proceedings before it without having regard to the substantive provision of the Act. Subtain H. Kazmi v. Tasawar H. Shah 1999 SCR 164 (A)
  126. Aggrieved person — Respondents were not substantively in B-16 — They stood no chance of getting even an indirect advantage because they could not be considered for appointment even on acting charge or current charge basis — Thus if the appointment of the appellant was illegal, the respondents did not stand to gain anything, therefore, they cannot be termed as aggrieved persons and appeal filed by them was not maintainable. Zahida Mahmood v. Muhammad Sabir Khan and 5 others 2000 SCR 78 (B)
  127. Appeal was filed against appellate order passed on 28th June 1999 and not against order dated 13th March — Order of 13th March had merged in the appellate order which was duly challenged — In such circumstances a liberal consideration will advance the ends of justice — Held: that where before expiry of limitation prescribed by law the appellate authority dismisses the appeal the aggrieved civil servant may file appeal against the appellate order, in such a situation it is not necessary to challenge the original order. Zareen Shah v. IGP and 3 others 2000 SCR 305 (B)   
  128. A person who is on deputation to the service of AJK in connection with the affairs of the Govt. from the Council or the Federation or any province of Pakistan or authority and a person who is employed on contract or on work-charge basis and paid from contingencies, cannot invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. A. RASHID v. AKMIDC 2002 SCR 530 (C)   
  129. Service Tribunal had no jurisdictional competence to prescribe any qualification for any post or to direct the authority for doing so.Syed Saleem H. Kazmi v.Azad Govt.&others 2005SCR259 (D)
  130. Final Order — In fiscal matters relating to civil servants the decision of Finance Department is considered as effective and final — Its opinion carries weight till the time the same is either overruled by Prime Minister or by a Court of competent jurisdiction — An order for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act which gives rise to grievance of civil servant and is final in nature can be challenged before Service Tribunal. Azad Government & another v. Dr. Latafat Amin & another 2006 SCR 384 (A) 1994 SCMR 1033 and 1991 PLC (CS) 426 rel.
  131. Before the withdrawal of policy of advance increments by Government the respondent had passed the examination of M.Phil which was notified on 29.11.2001 — Held: It will make no difference if due to some administrative procedure, requisite degree was issued later on by University Authorities — The order of Finance Department refusing him benefit of advance increments in light of aforementioned policy was bad in law — Rightly set aside by Service Tribunal. Azad Government & another v. Dr. Latafat Amin & another 2006 SCR 384 (B)
  132. Case was remanded to the Service Tribunal holding that the single member was not competent to dispose of the appeal — Direction was with regard to parties before the Supreme Court — Present appellants were party before the Supreme Court — It was enjoined upon the Service Tribunal to hear the present appellants — Direction was not followed — Violation of judgment of this Court has been committed —The case is prolonging for the last many years — The case remanded to the Service Tribunal with the direction that appellants shall also appear before the Tribunal and move an application for impleading them as party — The case shall be decided within a period of one month and fifteen days from the day the file is received in the Service Tribunal. Pervaiz Qureshi & another v. Sajid Ali Gillani & 10 others 2007 SCR 118 (A)
  133. Disposal of appeal by a single member — Effect of — Held: the learned single member was not competent to dispose of the appeal — case remanded to the Service Tribunal with the direction to decide the same afresh after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. Azad Government and 2 others v. Mian Hayat Khan 2007 SCR 121 (A)
  134. Appeals before Service Tribunal cannot either way be decided by a single member — Case remanded. Aziz-ur-Rehman v. Health Department & 5 others 2007 SCR 452 (A)
  135. The Tribunal has no suo motu power to issue any direction or pass any order after coming to the conclusion that the appeal filed before it is not maintainable. Abdul Qayyum Durrani v. Legislative Assembly & 4 others 2007 SCR 250 (E)
  136. The appeal before the Service Tribunal can be filed by a civil servant who is aggrieved by any final order whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority — In memorandum of appeal he has to implead the competent authority as first respondent and thereafter the parties to the dispute to be arrayed as other respondents. Dr. A. Ghaffar Sulehria v. Azad Govt. 2008 SCR 230 (D)
  137. Schedule II — Item 5 — Confers powers on the ‘Tribunal’ — Not on the single member or single Bench for issuance of notice after the admission of appeal. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (S)
  138. Single member of Tribunal is competent to admit or dismiss the appeal in limine — However, the appeal is to be finally disposed of by the Tribunal consisting of Chairman and one member. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (T)
  139. Powers and jurisdiction of — The Service Tribunal is not vested with the powers to issue a writ of quo warrantto rather it has only the powers to look into the validity of order impugned before it in an appeal — Before the Service Tribunal the promotion order dated 12.10.2002 is challenged — Held: The Service Tribunal can confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against. Shafique Ahmad v. The Hon’ble Chief Justice AJK High Court & 4 others 2010 SCR 522 (C)
  140. Para 3 of 2nd schedule — rule 8 of AJ&K Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules — read with Civil Servants Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder — service appeal — necessary party — term “parties to the dispute” — scope — Held: the term ‘parties to the dispute’ is confined to the persons (civil servants) whose terms and conditions of service are directly involved in the dispute.  While deciding the appeal by the Service Tribunal, such rights (terms and conditions) are directly determined among the contestant parties. Further held: any third person whose any terms & conditions of service are not involved, is not necessary party to the dispute. Non-joinder of such person in appeal is not fatal and the appeal merely on this ground cannot be dismissed. Samina Kabir v. Shamim Akhtar & 7 others 2014 SCR 223 (B)   
  141. Service appeal — necessary parties and proper parties — non-joinder — its effect — Service Tribunal dismissed service appeal on the ground that MLA on whose proposal transfer order has been issued, is not impleaded as party — Held: if any material factual and legal proposition is of such a nature that for deciding the appeal, consideration of the same is material than the third person who is neither authority nor civil servant, can be considered as proper party.  If the parties or any of them has averred in the pleadings any material fact in relation to any third person either of misuse of powers on the basis of political influence, favoritism or nepotism, and in the light of the averred facts in the pleadings, for deciding such material legal and factual proposition, recording of findings is necessary, in such case such third person being proper party is to be impleaded in appeal. Further held: due to non-joinder of a third person being proper party, the appeal does not become ipso facto incompetent.  The only effect of non-impleading such person as party will be that any material fact averred relating to such person will not be considered by the concerned forum and no findings shall be recoded against such person in his absence and such assertion shall be deemed excluded from consideration. Samina Kabir v. Shamim Akhtar & others 2014 SCR 223 (C) 2004 SCR 16  ref.
  142. Service appeal — necessary party — Held: according to the spirit of law, relating to terms and conditions of the civil servants, the only contestant parties whose legal rights (terms and conditions of service) are involved, are necessary parties to the dispute — any third person whose none of the rights is involved and the question of accruing his rights by afflux of time arises, such person can be impleaded as party at any stage. Samina Kabir v.Shamim Akhtar &others 2014 SCR 223 (E)   
  143. Service appeal — necessary party — in the case titled Kaneez Fatima  vs. Divisional Director Schools and others (Civil Appeal No.70/2012 decided on 4.7.2013) a tentative opinion was expressed by the Court without detailed deliberation that the Minister, on whose direction, transfer order was issued, is necessary party in the light of the peculiar fact of that case.  Tentative opinion of Court resulted into drawing the conclusion that in every appeal, any such third person is necessary party. Held: it has been finally concluded that in service appeal, the contestant civil servants and the authority are necessary party.  The opinion expressed in Kaniz Fatima’s case shall be deemed reviewed. Samina Kabir v. Shamim Akhtar & 7 others 2014 SCR 223 (F) (In the case titled Kaneez Fatima vs. Divisional Director Schools and others (Civil Appeal No.70/2012 decided on 4.7.2013) the opinion expressed is reviewed).   The deputationist has been excluded from the definition of civil servant provided under section 2 (B)(I) of Act 1975 which clearly speaks that under the provisions of Act 1976 a person who is or has been on deputation to the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir from the Federation or any other province of Pakistan or Authority, is excluded from the definition of a civil servant. Muhammad Nazir v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2015 SCR 393 (B)
  144. Chairman — Service Tribunal — terms and conditions — unless rules are framed — to be determined under proviso — according to the admitted position, in compliance of subsection 4 of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act, up-till-now the terms and conditions of service of the Chairman Service Tribunal have not been determined by making rules. Thus, in absence of rules the question of determination of terms and conditions of service of Chairman Service Tribunal has to be resolved by application of proviso added by amending Act, 1995. AJ&K Govt. & 2 others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (F)
  145. Chairman — terms and conditions — determined by the President on relevant date i.e. 12th March, 1993 — chairman entitle to receive pay, allowance and privileges, equal to the Judge High Court — The record produced by the parties reveals that at the relevant time, one Sardar Sajawal Khan (late) was holding the office of Chairman Service Tribunal whose terms and conditions of service were determined vide notification dated 8.4.1990. Sardar Sajawal Khan, retired w.e.f 31.7.1993. Thus, it appears that at the time of commencement of amending Act, XXVIII of 1995, according to enforced terms and conditions determined by the President, the Chairman Service Tribunal being the Chairman was entitled to receive the pay, allowances and privileges, equal to the Judge High Court. AJ&K Govt. & 2 others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (I)
  146. Chairman — AJ&K Service Tribunal — term and conditions — pay and privileges equal to Judge High Court — tenure of office is 4 years — according to both the notifications, mentioned in preceding paragraph, determining the terms and conditions of service and retirement, the  tenure for the post of Chairman Service Tribunal is fixed as 4 years according to law.  Thus, according to spirit of the presently enforced statutory provision of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act, the terms and conditions of service of Chairman Service Tribunal applicable to Sardar Sajawal Khan (late) Chairman Service Tribunal shall be deemed to have been determined under the Service Tribunals Act. In this state of affairs, there remains no ambiguity that according to law, the Chairman Service Tribunal while holding the office is entitled to the pay, allowances and privileges equal to Judge High Court and the term of his office shall be 4 years.  Thus, according to the spirit of the enforced law, the Chairman Service Tribunal has to hold the office as Chairman for a term of 4 years unless the law is amended or the vires of the same are specifically challenged. There can be no variation in the terms and conditions of service of Chairman Service Tribunal as were applicable on 12th March, 1993.  Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding  that the respondent according to law  may hold the post of Chairman Service Tribunal for a term of 4 years  and after completion of the tenure, he cannot claim to remain further in the office. AJ&K Govt. & 2 others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (J)
  147. Chairman — tenure post for 4 years — completion of tenure of office — effect of — he shall revert back to post according to law applicable to him — further, not entitled to pension or other benefits of a Judge High Court — according to law the office of Chairman Service Tribunal is a tenure post for 4 years and after serving 4 years’ period, the person holding the office has to revert back to his post according to the other laws applicable to him, but after completion of this tenure, neither he can claim any benefits of pension nor any privileges of a Judge High Court according to law. AJ&K Govt. & 2 others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (K) 
  148. —The appellant who admittedly was not possession of degree of B.Tech (Hons) at the relevant time could not have been considered for promotion against the quota reserved for B.Tech (Hons) degree holders—Held: substantially the compliance has been made and without challenging the order of promotion of respondent, the appeal was not competent. Tanveer-ul-Haq Shaheen v.        Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1059 (B)
  149. —Senior Member of the AJ&K Service Tribunal—casus omissus—no mechanism provided to determine the seniority amongst Members of the Service Tribunal in the relevant Act and Rules—in absence of any provision regarding a particular situation a general principle is to fallowed—senior in age attains seniority. Kousar Parveen v. Naila Aziz & others 2022 SCR 1351 (C) PLD 2013 SC 279 ref.
error: Content is protected !!