' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHI, J.---This constitutional petition has been filed with the following prayer:-- "that the respondents may be ordered to implement the orders of Honourable Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan No, DMS (PM)-4/2003-726 dated 4-6-2003 without further delay in the present equivalent designation along with the seniority. Any other relief found appropriate may also be granted."
2. Brief facts of the case as that the petitioner qualified the competitive examination and in the service of Pakistan serving as Deputy Collector Customs. On 3-6-2003, he made an application for change of his occupational group. The worthy Prime Minister issued the directive to the following effect:-- "an application of Mr. Syed Junaid Arshad, Assistant Collector, Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Rawalpindi presented to the Prime Minister by Maj. (Retd) Tahir Sadik, District Nazim, Attock, on the above subject is enclosed. The Prime Minister has kindly approved the request. The application may be forwarded to Establishment Division for further necessary action."
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that the said directive of the worthy Prime Minister is not being implemented.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the respondents are bound to implement the directive of the worthy Prime Minister; certain offices were allowed to change their occupational group; further that change of occupational group has been permitted on case to case basis. The petitioner's case was similarly placed before the worthy Prime Minister and he approved the change; his order is perfectly lawful and cannot be ignored by any person or authority; it is the worst example of the discrimination and is clear violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. Comments have been filed by the respondents. It is contended that the case of the petitioner pertains to terms and conditions of service and adjudication of such-like dispute fall within the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the service dispute; further that there is no law/rule to permit change in the occupational group once assigned by the FPSC as such-like practice of change of group will undermine the very purpose and theme of competition; Adds that worthy Prime Minister has not passed the directive for change in occupational group of the petitioner rather sought comments of the respondents which were accordingly submitted with recommendation that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to and Establishment Division is of the view that there is no provision in the Rules to change the group.
6. In rebuttal learned counsel for petitioner contends that terms and conditions of service of civil servant have been defined in section 3 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and on the touchstone of statutory definition of "terms and conditions of service" as given in statute. The question in issue i,e, re-allocation of occupational group could not be termed to be a question relating to terms and conditions of service and this being so there was no question of bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance. Before I proceed to decide the case of the petitioner on merits regarding the implementation of the directive of the worthy Prime Minister regarding re-allocation of occupational group and discrimination urged by the learned counsel for petitioner, I would firstly decide the question of jurisdiction of this Court as per Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Section 3 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 defines the terms and conditions of services of civil servant. On the touchstone of statutory definition of "terms and conditions of service" as given in Statute the question in issue i,e, re-allocation of occupational group could not be termed as relating to the terms and conditions of service and this being so there was no question of bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 being attracted. For my this view I am fortified with the case reported as Fakhar-uz-Zaman Ali Cheema v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others (2001 CLC 1277), while interpretating the provisions of Articles 199 and 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 it was held that re-allocation of occupational group could not be termed to be a question relating to terms and conditions of service. This being so, I do hold that re- allocation of occupational group cannot be termed to be a question relating to terms and conditions of service, therefore, there was no question of bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 being attracted, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
8. Now coming to the merits of the case, it was not disputed that the worthy Prime Minister has issued the directive. I have noted that in certain cases the order of the worthy Prime Minister had been implemented. On the directive of the worthy Prime Minister re-allocation of Syed Asif Haider Shah from OMG to DMG (Annex-D) Capt. Muhammad Khuurram Agha from Pakistan Foreign Service to DMG (Annex-E) was done in relaxation of the rules and Mr. Muhammad Azam, Zulfiqar Hameed, Hassan Abbas, Sabir Ahmad and Mrs. Helena Rizwan Treen who were posted in police service in Pakistan were also re-allocated group. In reply to para-4 it has been admitted by the respondents that Mrs. Helena Rizwan Treen was allowed to change her occupational group on compassionate grounds as her husband had died while discharging public duties as police officer.
I have noted that the change of group has been permitted on case to case basis. The petitioner was similarly placed before the worthy Prime Minister and he approved the change. His order is perfectly lawful and cannot be ignored by any person or authority. The petitioner has been discriminated. The action of the respondents infringes Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which says that, "all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law".
9. In case of Fakhar uz Zaman Ali Cheema v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others (2001 CLC 1277) "order passed by the authorities refusing to allocate Income Tax Group in place of Accounts Group to the writ petitioner was declared as illegal without jurisdiction and without lawful authority" and High Court directed the authorities to allocate Income Tax Group to the writ petitioner.
10. Directive issued by the worthy Prime Minister has to be enforced or implemented and if the order is not to be enforced or implemented then there is no reason to issue the same. Issuance of such order where it creates hopes and expectations, it results in total frustration and disappointment when it is not implemented and yields no benefits or fruits. Such non-compliance militates even against the declared, proclaimed and projected policy of good governance.
11. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondent/Government of Pakistan to implement and ensure the compliance of the directive No,DMS(PM)- 4/2003-726 dated 4-6-2003 of the worthy Prime Minister without any further delay.
' Writ Petition is allowed with costs.