| Case ID |
21059299-5858-4fce-b4a5-b109331f5b81 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petitions Nos.612 of 2010, 2932 of 2011, 3050 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 24, 2011 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petitions concerning the repatriation of civil servants on deputation before the completion of their tenure. The court held that the competent authority has the discretion to repatriate a deputationist at any time and that there is no vested right to remain on deputation. The court emphasized the importance of following the regulations outlined in the Civil Establishment Code and noted that the petitioners could not claim permanent absorption or extension of their deputation beyond the stipulated period without compelling reasons. The decision reinforces the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to establish a legal right but only to enforce one. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the constitutional petitions filed by various civil servants challenging their repatriation from deputation to their parent departments. The Islamabad High Court, presided by Chief Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman, addressed multiple petitions that arose from common questions of law and facts, focusing particularly on the rights of civil servants under the wedlock policy and the provisions of the Civil Establishment Code. The court concluded that there is no absolute right for deputationists to remain indefinitely in their positions and that discretion lies with the competent authority regarding their repatriation. The decision highlights key constitutional provisions and the interpretation of civil service regulations, emphasizing that while the wedlock policy aims to alleviate socio-economic issues faced by married civil servants, it does not guarantee permanent absorption. This ruling sets a precedent in interpreting the terms of service for civil servants and reinforces the regulatory framework governing their employment. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman, C.J.
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate,
Muhammad Mushtaq Bhatti, Advocate,
Sardar Shabbir Hussain, Advocate
|
| Petitioners |
Asma Shaheen and 19 others
|
| Respondents |
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and 3 others
|
| Citations |
2013 SLD 1824,
2013 PLC 391
|
| Other Citations |
Sajida Abdullah v. District Coordination Officer and 2 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 592,
Muhammad Afzal and another v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another 2009 PLC (C.S.) 580,
Director-General, Health Services, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and another v. Dr. Nizakat Iqbal Karim and another 2000 SCMR 67,
Dr. Shoukat Pervez v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad 2011 PLC (C.S.) 26,
Col.(R) Syed Mukhtar Hussain v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 3 others 2004 CLC 1019,
PLD 2010 SC 759,
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab and 4 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1322,
Syeda Adeeba Anjum v. Secretary Government of Punjab Education Department, Lahore and another 2004 PLC (C.S.) 622,
Uzma Javed v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Education, Punjab and 2 others 2010 YLR 1968,
Walayat Ali Mir v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its Chairman and another 1995 SCMR 650,
Abid Hussain and others v. P.I.A.C. and others 2005 SCMR 25,
Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185,
Syeda Shazia Irshad Bokhari v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Health and another 2005 PLC 428,
Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A. Islamabad through Chairman and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 367,
Mst. Fahim Mumtaz v. Secretary (Schools) 2010 PLC (C.S.) 619,
Lal Khan v. Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution through Chairman and 2 others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1377
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan,
Civil Establishment Code
|
| Sections |
199,
212,
Sl. No.28 (Chapter-II)
|