' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the order of the High Court dated 30-6-1999, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was partly admitted for regular hearing.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was Vice President/General Manager of Regional Office of Habib Bank Limited, Muzaffarabad. He was retired from service in pursuance of a policy known as "Down sizing" before attaining the age of superannuation i,e, 60 years. In pursuance of the policy, he was paid certain amount of emoluments. However, a sum of Rs,1, 28,455 was deducted as income tax and zakat from amount to be paid. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that his premature retirement was against the relevant rules and was also violative of Fundamental Right which stipulates equality before law. His contention was that the persons falling in category-I of the scheme were not only served notices before their retirement but they were also allowed encasement of leave salary. However, the appellant who falls in category II of the said policy was neither served a notice nor he was given the encasement of the leave as was done in case of the employees falling in category-I of the scheme.
' His further contention before the High Court was that he was legally entitled to complete sixty years service because relevant rules do not stipulate retirement in pursuance of the policy, like the one which was adapted by respondent No,1 .
3. The High Court after hearing the arguments admitted the writ petition only to the extent of deduction of amount of income tax and zakat was concerned but declined to admit the writ petition so far as the same pertained to the question of legality of his premature retirement on the ground that he being public servant was not competent to file a writ petition against the impugned order as the matter fell within the jurisdiction to the Service Tribunal.
4. Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that in view of the amendment made in section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, only a person who is serving can seek the remedy from Service Tribunal and not a civil servant who has been retired. He has further argued that as the appellant has been retired from service, he cannot seek the redressal of his grievance from the Service Tribunal and thus, the High. Court has committed an error in holding that the writ was not competent. He has further contended that as the appellant, herein, was serving in the relevant Bank in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Territory at the relevant time, he would be governed by the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975 and not the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which is in force in Pakistan.
5. In reply Mr. Muhammad Idress Mughal, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 has controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. He has argued that the 'Banking' is the subject of the AJK Council under third Schedule to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and only the Council had the competence to make laws regarding the same.
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the grievances of the appellant, if any, falls within the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal, constituted under the provision of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and not within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal constituted under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975 which is in force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. He has further submitted that an amendment has been made in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 whereby section 2-A has been inserted and the employees of the organizations in which Government has interest have been declared in service of Pakistan. He has referred to the relevant amendment and has argued that the same has been adapted by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council by virtue of Act (V of 1998) known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council (Adaptation and Validation) Act, 1998. Thus, the learned counsel has argued that by virtue of aforesaid amendment the appellant is to be treated as a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and thus, only the Federal Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the matter and not the Service Tribunal constituted under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975. He has contended that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked by a civil servant and thus, the impugned orders does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at Bar. After the amendment made in form of section 2-A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 in Pakistan and the adoption of the same by the Azad. Jammu and Kashmir Council by virtue of Act (V of 1998), the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant would be governed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975 has no force, and is hereby repelled. It may be observed here that there is no amendment in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 in terms that only a civil servant who is serving can seek the redressal from the Service Tribunal and not one who is retired. Thus, the order of the High Court does not suffer from any illegality.
' In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with costs.