Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and seniority ) Rules, 1985,

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 116 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ZAFAR ALI
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad
Preamble---Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and seniority ) Rules, 1985, Preamble---Provincial Police Officers---Promotion of---All Pakistan Service---Contention of petitioners being Provincial Police Officers BPS-17 was that there was no service structure for them beyond BPS-18 at provincial level---Validity---Provincial Police Officers on reaching BPS-18 would enter the All Pakistan Service and they would be governed under Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and seniority ) Rules, 1985---Provincial Police Officers up to BPS-17 were not to be dealt with by or under Federal Service Laws but when they reached for promotion to BPS-18 then they would enter (encadred into) the Federal Public Service and only thereafter their service would come under the Federal Service regime---Provincial Services and Federal Services were not only distinct services but had also been kept separate with their distinct allocated realm of administrative fields---Services which were common to both the Federation and Provinces had been vested in the jurisdiction of Parliament---Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction to strike down rules with regard to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant even if challenge was made on the touchstone of violation of fundamental rights---Constitutional Courts could refuse relief on the ground of jurisdiction but Government was to ensure a transparent and conducive service environment---Provincial and Federal Government should convene a joint meeting to consider the grievance of the petitioners---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 112 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MUNAWAR KHAN
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
R. 9---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Recruitment and Appointment) Rules, 1980, Appendix---Deputy Director posted as Director Local Fund Audit (PBS-19) in his own pay and scale---Contention of petitioner was that impugned notification was issued in violation of Recruitment Rules and government instructions on the subject---Validity---Mode of filling the post of Director (BS-19) in the Department of Local Fund Audit was by promotion on the basis of seniority -cum-fitness from amongst the Deputy Directors with twelve years service in BPS-17---Post of Director (BS-19) was promotion post and could be filled through transfer if no suitable person was available for promotion---Respondent was at serial number 6 and he lacked twelve years service in BPS-17---Promotion post in such a situation was to be filled in temporarily---Post of Director was not available for promotion as incumbent promotee had been temporarily posted out from the department---Court could not allow any arbitrary decision in violation of law and Rules---Senior officer of department was proposed by the Finance Department to be posted as Director but competent authority had picked the respondent without any legal justification or reason for preference over senior officer---Petitioner had challenged the appointment of respondent regarding ineligibility, violation of Rules and arbitrariness in posting him---Any person could lay information to the Court regarding a public office being illegally occupied---Person laying such information should not be an aggrieved person---Posting of private respondent was arbitrary and without application of mind---Impugned notification was struck down and department was directed to fill the post of Director Local Fund Audit in accordance with law within a period of two months---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 78 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : SALAHUDDIN
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
S. 3--- Project employees--- Regularization of service---Discrimination---Effect---Contention of petitioners was that project posts having been converted into regular budgetary posts, their services could not be terminated---Validity---Petitioners were initially appointed in the years 2006/2007 on contract for a period of one year and their contract was extended from time to time in the said project---Services of petitioners were terminated on 30-06-2010 due to conversion of project on regular budget---Employees working against the project post were regularized automatically when development budget was converted to regular side---Project wherein petitioners were serving had been converted into regular side---Petitioners, in circumstnaces, had been discriminated in the present case---Authorities were directed by the High Court to issue appointment orders of petitioners within one month---Petitioners were not entitled for back benefits as they did not perform their duties during this period with the department---Petitioners were allowed seniority by counting their previous service in the project---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.