1. The appellant seeks redress from the arbitrary order of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (hereinafter mentioned as PAEC) vide its Office Order No. 129/72, dated 5th May 1972, whereby pay was reduced by the amount of pension, thus envisaging recovery of Rs. 158,24.30 at the rate of Rs.
2. 325 per month. The appellant in the case is Mr. G. A. Razvi, Principal Stores Officer of the Nuclear Power Plant, Nazimabad, Karachi. Respondent is Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.
3. Parties are at logger-head since recruitment of the appellant who was released from Pakistan Air Force after he has put in 13 years, 7 months and 15 days' service. He was retired on pension but the appellant names it as "Compensation Pension".
4. In the beginning i.e. On 7th February 1966, he was allowed pay scale of Rs. 750-75-1,500 plus pension. On 22nd June 1966 the pay was reduced by pension. A representation was duly made. The order of reduction was rescinded. After 6-- years of service. PAEC passed the order in dispute which also contemplated recovery. The appellant claims exception to the order.- The principal averment on behalf of the PAEC is that Tribunal has no jurisdiction, The case was argued on these lines.
5. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission was created by an Ordinance No. XVII of 1965 which was assented to by the President on 27th May 1965. With respect to certain matters, Commission was bound by the advice and directives of the Federal Government but it was constituted as Body Corporate under section 3 (2) of the aforementioned Ordinance. Its Members under section 5 were to be appointed by the Central Government but other employees were to be recruited by the Commission itself by virtue of section 13. The section runs as under :--- "The Commission may, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) and such general or special orders as the Central Government may give it from time to time, appoint such officers, advisors and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its function ors such terms and conditions as it may deem fit."
6. Subsection (2)----- "The Central Government may direct the Commission to dispense with the services of any officer, advisor or employee and when so directed the Commission shall dispense with his services."
7. Administrative orders were` passed by the PAEC from time to time. Paragraph 8 of administrative orders concerns recruitment and fixation of pay. It contemplates recruitment of PAEC employees by a Committee consisting of Members of the Governing Body with the Director of the Central concerned as Chairman. The Committee is entrusted with powers to determine initial pay of person so-selected. No intention to comply with any outside rules is incorporated clearly depicting nature of such engagement. Civil Service has other requirements, not engendered by the aforementioned directive.
8. Service rules framed in 1974 may also be referred to with advantage to determine status of the appellant. Rule 26 of PAEC Employees Service Rules, 1974 contemplates adaptation of Government Servants Conduct Rules of 1964. These developments reflect on the character of the service. The picture that emerges is that PAEC was Corporate Body created by an Ordinance. All its employees were to be governed by Rules framed by the Commission or adapted by it and that in certain matters direction of the Government will be binding on the Commission as distinguished front the person net thereof.
9. In this context we have to look into the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which in turn depends upon the definition of Civil Servant given in the Civil Servants Act of the same year.
10. Principal reliance of the appellant is on the words `serving with respect to affairs of the federation, occurring in the definition of the civil servant given in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 it is contended that Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission a Corporate Body furthers directions and Policies of the Central Government and as such is a Body created with respect to e affairs of the Centre. There is no quarrel with the proposition that P. A. E. C. Itself was created to take over certain responsibilities, entrusted to it by the federal Government, but its funds do not entirely emanate from the Federal Government. It is also entitled to endowments, etc., made by other persons, in this respect. Thus arguments of creation for a particular purpose will be of no avail.
11. Besides, civil servant is controlled by the provisions of Civil Servants Act. For this purpose rules have to be framed by the President who is considered as employer of all the persons engaged with respect to the affairs of the Federation. He may delegate authority by rules but it would be a delegated function of the President that will be exercised by Departmental Heads PAEC does not borrow any functions from .The President. It is a creation of an Ordinance and of right, is entitled to recruit its personnel, who will be bound by the rules framed by PAEC and not brought on stature book by the President. After rules are adapted by the Corporate Body, it is the will of the Corporate Body that has made such rules applicable and would not entitle a person to claim his status as civil servant merely because a Corporate Body has adapted such rules.
12. If any parallel is necessary WAPDA employees afford a good example. They were similarly employed by an authority created by the Government under an Ordinance. Its employer were not considered civil servants until an amendment was passed into the Act, giving them the status. It clearly indicates intended ouster of jurisdiction, otherwise amendment for a particular purpose would not be necessary. The net result is that appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to afford relief to the appellant. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.