| Case ID |
451bc91e-c686-488f-bd7f-b73710323c4b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition No.204 of 2009 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 02, 2009 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 02, 2009 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi against the termination of his deputation by the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.) before the completion of his designated three-year period. The court held that, in the absence of specific legal provisions mandating the completion of the deputation period, the competent authority retains the discretion to repatriate a deputationist based on the exigencies of service. The petitioner’s claim of vested rights was not recognized within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the authority's decision to terminate the deputation. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi versus Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.), Islamabad, the Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered a pivotal decision on the legal intricacies surrounding deputation in civil services. Civil Petition No.204 of 2009, decided on April 2, 2009, addressed the premature termination of Dr. Afridi's deputation before the completion of his three-year tenure. The petitioner challenged the repatriation order issued by C.D.A., arguing that it violated the terms and conditions stipulated under the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) and the Constitution of Pakistan (1973).
The core legal debate hinged on Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, which governs deputation, and Article 185(3) and Article 199 of the Constitution, which pertain to constitutional jurisdiction and the scope of petitions before the High Court. Dr. Afridi contended that his early repatriation infringed upon his vested rights and lacked just cause, seeking redress through a constitutional petition.
Represented by Sardar Muhammad Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, the petitioner argued that the absence of a specific legal provision allows deputationists to serve their entire deputation period without arbitrary termination. Conversely, the C.D.A., defended by Abdul Karim Khan Kundi and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, maintained that repatriation decisions lie within the discretionary powers of competent authorities, especially when dictated by service exigencies.
The Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Javed Iqbal, Sarmad, and Jalal Osmany, meticulously examined precedents such as Zain Yar Khan v. Chief Engineer and Pakistan v. Fazal-ur-Rehman, reinforcing the principle that deputation agreements are subject to the operational needs of the appointing authority. The court underscored that, without explicit statutory mandates, authorities retain the right to curtail deputations based on service requirements.
Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioner’s assertion of vested rights under constitutional provisions, concluding that such claims did not fall within the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199. The decision emphasized that deputation is an administrative arrangement aimed at fulfilling public interest and does not guarantee indefinite tenure for the deputationist.
This judgment has significant implications for civil service operations in Pakistan, delineating the boundaries of deputation agreements and the extent of administrative discretion in managing service terms. It affirms the supremacy of organizational needs over individual deputation agreements, provided there is no explicit legal entitlement guaranteed under existing laws.
Legal experts view this decision as a reinforcement of the flexible nature of deputation within civil services, balancing individual service terms with the overarching requirements of public administration. The case also highlights the judiciary's role in interpreting statutory provisions to uphold administrative efficiency while safeguarding against unwarranted arbitrary decisions.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in Civil Petition No.204 of 2009 establishes a clear precedent on the non-binding nature of deputation periods in the absence of specific legislative directives. It empowers competent authorities to make necessary service adjustments, ensuring that civil service operations remain responsive to evolving administrative needs without being encumbered by rigid deputation agreements. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Establishment Division,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.)
|
| Judges |
JAVED IQBAL,
SARMAD,
JALAL OSMANY
|
| Lawyers |
Sardar Muhammad Khurram Latif Khan Khosa,
Abdul Karim Khan Kundi,
Raja Abdul Ghafoor
|
| Petitioners |
Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi
|
| Respondents |
C.D.A., Islamabad through Chairman and others
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 2299,
2010 PLC 367
|
| Other Citations |
Zain Yar Khan v. Chief Engineer 1998 SCMR 2419,
Aslam Warraich v. Secretary, Planning and Development Division 1991 SCMR 2330,
Pakistan v. Fazal-ur-Rehman PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 82,
Sheikh Abdul Rahim's case PLD 1964 Lah. 376,
Abdul Khaliq Anjum's case 1998 PLC (C.S.) 839,
Government of Pakistan v. Prof. M.A. Saeed C.P.No.427-L of 1991,
Prof. M. Ashraf Khan Niazi v. Chairman Board of Governors, Allama Iqbal Medical College 2003 PLC (C.S.) 243 rel.,
Pakistan v. Moazzam Hussain Khan and another PLD 1959 SC 13,
PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lah. 376,
Abdul Qayyum v. Nasrullah Khan Draishak and others 1975 SCMR 320,
Ala-ud-Din Akhtar v. Government of Punjab and another 1982 CLC 515,
Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh v. Government of Punjab PLD 1989 Lah. 175,
Ayyaz Anjum v. Government of Punjab and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 123,
1997 SCMR 169,
Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry v. Ahmad Nawaz Malik and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 124,
1997 SCMR 170,
Abdul Khaliq Anjum v. Secretary Education 1998 PLC (C.S.) 839,
Muhammad Rafique v. Secretary Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others 1998 SCMR 2631 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973),
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
10,
185(3),
199
|