' On 11-9-1990, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that the respondent was appointed as Sweeper by petitioner No.2 on 1-10-1989 in Government Girls High School-II, Samundri. She complained that she had not been paid her salary since 3-10-1989. On the complaint of a teacher she was transferred from Government Girls High School-II Samundri.
According to her she is performing her duties but is not being paid salary. Accordingly she prayed for a decree in the sum of Rs.9718.86 towards her salary for the period from 1-10-1989 to 31-8-1990.
The petitioners in their written statement objected that the respondent is a civil servant and only the competent Service Tribunal has jurisdiction. On merits, it was stated that on 3-10-1989 the respondent was directed to report in the office of petitioner No.2 but she did not report there or to School No.II. She was proceeded against under E&D Rules and was removed from service on 28-10- 1989. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct to bring the present suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to her salary to the tune of Rs.9718 for the reasons stated in the plaint?
5. Relief.
' Vide judgment and decree dated 5-11-1995, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. However, I may note that under Issue No.1 pertaining to jurisdiction it was observed that the dispute regarding salary is cognizable by a civil Court. The respondent filed first appeal. It was heard by learned District Judge, Faisalabad, who opted to ignore the said objection to jurisdiction and proceeded to hold, upon reading of evidence, that the respondent is entitled to the suit amount as salary.
Consequently the appeal was allowed and suit was decreed on 24-10-1996.
2. Present C.R. Was allowed by this Court ex parte on 11-6-2002. Respondent filed C.M. No.1492 of 2002 for setting aside the ex parte judgment. It was allowed on 6-5-2004 and the mater was heard.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Objects that admittedly the respondent is a civil servant and dispute relates to salary which is a term of her service and as such civil Court has no jurisdiction. On merits also he states that it stood proved that the respondent was removed from service on 28-10-1989.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argues that the claim for salary would be cognizable by a civil Court. He states that no evidence was produced in the trial about the dismissal of the respondent.
5. I will restrain myself from making any observation on the merits of the case. It is but apparent on the face of records that the respondent is a civil servant. Salary is a term and condition of said service. In this view of the matter, exclusive jurisdiction vests with the competent Service Tribunal of the Province in view of unambiguous provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. C.R. Is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside.
Suit is dismissed on the ground that the claim of the respondent is not cognizable by a civil Court.
She may however, file an appeal B before the competent learned Service Tribunal and in case she applies for condonation of delay, it is hoped that the matter will be considered sympathetically in view of peculiar circumstances of this case.
' No orders as to costs.