' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---We intend to decide the captioned appeals by one consolidated judgment having similar facts arising out of the common impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 7-2-2004.
2. Necessary facts out of which the aforesaid appeals arise are that Nawab Khan, respondent in C.A. No,537 of 2006 and also appellant in Civil Appeal No, 538 of 2006, was appointed as Deputy Manager in the Federal Government approved pay scale EPS-III which is equal to BPS-18 in the Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Limited, Karachi, an autonomous body under the State Engineering Corporation, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan, on 20-5-1984. His services were transferred to the Head Office i,e, State Engineering Corporation, Islamabad in March, 1989. He was promoted to the post of Manage in March, 1991 in EPS-IV which is equal to BPS-19.
Thereafter his services were transferred to the Heavy Electrical Complex, Haripur, in July, 1996. An advertisement was published for the post of Cost Accountant BPS-19 in Sales Tax Department of CBR. In response to the said advertisement he submitted an application for the same allegedly through proper channel. He was selected by the Selection Board. Appointment letter was issued by the Chairman CBR, Islamabad. Copy of the appointment letter was also endorsed by CBR to the Managing Director/Chairman, Heavy Electrical Complex, Haripur with the request to relieve him for joining CBR. Subsequently he was relieved on 23-1-1999 and (24-1-1999 being Sunday) he joined the CBR on 25-1-1999 without any service break. He had been asking for counting of his previous service of 14 years and 8 months i,e, from 20-5-1984 to 24-1-1999 for the purpose of pensionary financial benefits as well as pay protection to the competent authority of the CBR. CBR intimated him vide letter dated 17-4-2002 that the matter was referred to the Finance Division but his request was not accepted. He being aggrieved filed departmental appeal/representation before the competent authority on 4-5-2002 which was dismissed vide order dated 15-6-2002 which was conveyed to him on 21-6-2002. He being aggrieved filed an Appeal No,660(R)(C.S.) of 2002 before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The learned Service Tribunal partly accepted his appeal vide impugned judgment dated 7-2-2004. The Chairman CBR and others and Nawab Khan being aggrieved filed C.Ps. Nos.840 of 2004 and 881 of 2004 which were fixed before this Court on 4-4- 2006 and leave was granted in the following terms:- ' "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at length, we grant leave to appeal to consider, inter alia, the question whether the respondent, Nawab Khan was entitled to have the A protection of his previous service rendered in the State Engineering Corporation for the purposes of pay fixation and counting of previous service for pension...."
3. The learned Deputy Attorney General submits that Nawab Khan had submitted application directly in response to the advertisement to the office of the Chairman CBR. He had already completed requisite length of service in the autonomous body and had resigned from the said organization, therefore, the learned Service Tribunal erred in law to accept his appeal to the extent of counting his previous service for the purpose of financial benefits in the autonomous body from 20-5-1984 to 24-1-1999.
4. The learned counsel of Nawab Khan has supported the impugned judgment and further urged that the learned Service Tribunal had granted one relief to him as prayed for in his appeal before the Service Tribunal but the second relief was denied without application of mind.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the controversy between the parties after analyzing the documents on record in accordance with law on the subject 'Pensionary Rules' of 'Hand Book for Drawing and Disbursing Officers' Chapter IX, Rule 9.6(v) read with CSR 418(b). The said provision of law had already been interpreted by this court in Nafees Ahmad's case 2000 SCM R 1864. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "The respondent authorities are bound to follow the law in relation to the above facts of the claim of the appellant i,e, (1) protection of his pay and (2) counting of his period of service with S.B.P.
Towards pensionary benefits. Failure on the part of the Tribunal to act in accordance with the law on the subject cannot but be reversed with a direction to the respondent to fix the salary of the appellant at Rs,2,530 commencing vide order, dated 14-11-1999 and July, 1989. Order accordingly."
6. The operative part of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder:-- ' We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the case being discussed in the above judgment is identical with the case in hand inasmuch as (i) the appellant in the present case has put in 14 years and 8 months service in the autonomous body, (ii) he had also resigned his previous job before taking up his new appointment in the Government (iii) his service in the autonomous body is to be treated as effective service on his appointment in the Government and (iv) that the appellant is prepared to pay his pension contribution out of his own resourcds in case his former department shows any reluctance to pay the same. In our view, the judgment dated 13-5-1999 supports the case of the appellant whole hog. Additionally FR 22(a) bars protection of pay to an employee who does not hold a lien on his previous permanent post. The appellant resigned his post as Manager HEC, before joining as Cost Accountant in the CBR and, therefore, obviously his lien in his formal post stood abolished, debarring him from protection of his pay drawn as Manager HEC"
7. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the case in terms of the dictum laid down by this court in the aforesaid judgment. It is settled principle of law that judgment of this court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The learned Service Tribunal had rendered finding of fact after appreciation of evidence on record. Finding of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal is also in consonance with the aforesaid rules on the subject and law laid down by this court. Similarly the learned Service Tribunal had rightly refused the second relief to Nawab Khan in terms of fundamental rules 22(a). Both the learned counsel had failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Even otherwise appellants had failed to raise any question of public importance as contemplated under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is settled principle of law that finding of the Service Tribunal being finding of fact cannot call for any interference by this court while exercising power under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as law laid down by this court in Ch. Muhammad Azim's case 1991 SCM R 255. It is also settled principle of law that constitutional jurisdiction is always discretionary in character as the Service Tribunal had decided the case within the parameters and rules on the subject and law laid down by this court, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in favour of the appellants.
8. In view of what has been discussed above these appeals have no merit and the same are dismissed.