' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 19-1-2004 wherein appeal filed by the respondents was accepted.
2. Necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that respondent was in the service of the petitioners against the post of Assistant Treasurer. He tendered his resignation on 20-3-1999 due to the death of his mother and other circumstances. Petitioners directed him to deposit a sum of Rs,4,58,959 outstanding against him. The matter regarding outstanding amount was not settled between the petitioners and the respondent. Consequently respondent submitted an application on 4-6-2000 with the request to withdraw his resignation. His request was not accepted.
Respondent filed departmental appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Appeal No,421(L)
(C.E.)/2000 before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Service Tribunal accepted his appeal vide impugned judgment dated 19-1-2004. Hence the present petition filed by the petitioners on 25-3-2004. During the pendency of the petition this Court has decided the case of Muhammad Mobeen-usSalam reported as PLD 2006 SC 602.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that in view of the judgments of this Court passed in Muhammad Mobeen-us-Salam's case (PLD 2006 SC 602) and Civil Petition No,318 of 2005 (State Bank of Pakistan v. Agha Aurangzeb) whereby it was held that Service Tribunal was having no jurisdiction in the matter and which rule is applicable in the case in hand.
4. Learned counsel of the respondent submits that learned Service Tribunal had decided the case in his favour on 19-1-2004. This Court decided the case of Mobeen-us-Salam on 20-1-2006, therefore, this judgment has prospective effect and not retrospective effect.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rebuttal submits that State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations, 1999 are not statutory regulations.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. First of all we will decide the status of regulations of the petitioner qua statutory or non statutory regulations. For this purpose section 54 of the Sate Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 is reproduced hereinbelow:--
54. Powers of the Central Board to make regulations.--(1) Subject to the approval of the Central Government, the Central Board may make regulations consistent with this Act to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or convenient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
2(j) recruitment of officers and servants of the Bank including the terms and conditions of their service, constitution of superannuation, beneficial and other funds, with or without bank's contribution, for the officers and servants of the Bank; their welfare; providing amenities, medical facilities, grant of loans and advances; their betterment and uplift;
7. The words "subject to the approval of the Federal Government" were omitted vide Act II of 1994.
The regulations were framed under section 56 in the year, 1999 as is evident from the source on the basis of which the said regulations were framed which is to the following effect:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 54 of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 (XXXIII of 1956) the Central Board of Directors, hereby makes the following Regulations, to define the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank."
8. The omission of the aforesaid words subject to the approval from section 54 is meaningful. Rules framed by the Central Board of Directors which does not require approval of the Government, therefore aforesaid regulations may be termed as internal instructions or domestic rules/regulations having no status of statutory rules/regulations as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements which are as follows:--
(i) Cadet College Kohat's case PLD 1984 SC 170
(ii) Zia Ghafoor Paracha's case 2004 SCM R 35.
9. This Court has laid down the following principle in Mobeen-us-Salam case vide paras 108 and 109:- "108. The threadbare discussion on the subject persuades us to hold:--
(1) Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is partially, ultra vires of Articles 240 and 260 of the Constitution, to the extent of the category of employees, whose terms and conditions of service have not been determined by the Federal Legislature and by a deeming clause they cannot be treated civil servants as defined under section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973 and they are not engaged in the affairs of the Federation.
(2) Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 cannot be enforced in the absence of amendment in the definition of the civil servant under section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973.
(3) The cases of the employees under section 2-A, STA, 1973, who do not fall within the definition of civil servant as defined in section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, shall have no remedy before the Service Tribunal, functioning under Article 212 of the Constitution and they would be free to avail appropriate remedy.
'
109. Now the question is as to what would be the effect of this judgment on the cases pending before this Court and Federal Service Tribunal. In this behalf it may be noted that following the rule of past and closed transactions, laid down in the case of Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445, it is directed as follows:--
(a) The cases which have been decided finally by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution shall not be opened and if any review Petition, Miscellaneous Application or Contempt Application, filed against the judgment is pending, it shall be heard independently and shall not be affected by the ratio of this judgment.
(b) The proceedings instituted either by an employee or by an employer, pending before this Court, against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, not covered by category (a) before this Court or the Service Tribunal shall stand abated, leaving the parties to avail remedy prevailing prior to promulgation of section 2-A of the STA, 1973.
(c) The cases or proceedings which are not protected or covered by this judgment shall be deemed to have abated and the aggrieved person may approach the competent forums for redressal of their grievances within a period of 90 days and the bar of limitation provided by the respective laws, shall not operate against them till the expiry of stipulated period.
(d) The cases in which the order of Service Tribunal has been implemented shall remain intact for a period of 90 days or till the filing of appropriate proceedings, whichever is earlier.
(e) The Service Tribunal shall decide pending cases under section 2-A of the STA, 1973 in view of the above observations. However, if any of the cases is covered by clause 'c' (ibid), a period of 90 days shall be allowed to aggrieved party to approach the competent forum for the redressal of its grievance."
10. The aforesaid paras were clarified by this Court in Muhammad Idrees's case PLD 2007 SC 681.
Relevant observation from para 3 is as under:-- "While examining these matters, we find that cases at serial Nos.89 to 1914, mentioned in the later part of the judgment involve the employees whose services are not governed by statutory rules."
11. Contentions of Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Advocate, Supreme Court, in para 4 are as under:-- "The employees had succeeded before the learned Federal Service Tribunal after protracted litigation and, therefore, it was a fit case for applying defecto doctrine to save and protect the judgments delivered by the learned Federal Service Tribunal in favour of the employees..."
Mr. Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, appearing on behalf of the State Bank of Pakistan submits in para .6 as under:-- "The cases not covered by section 2-A stand abated which include the proceedings and judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal."
Finally this Court has analyzed the judgment Mubeen-us-Salam case in Muhammad Idrees's case PLD 2007 SC 681 and directs in para 14 as under:-- "(a) The cases noted at serial Nos.89 to 1914 stand abated with the result that the proceedings and judgments rendered by the learned Federal Service Tribunal also stand nullified. The affected/aggrieved parties are allowed a further period of 90 days to have recourse to the available remedies.
(b) The judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal rendered on the basis of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which were never challenged before this Court have attained finality and shall be implemented by the concerned organizations without dragging the employees into further litigation.
(c) The cases in which the services of the employees were governed by statutory rules are not hit by Mubeen-us-Salam's case."
12. The case of the respondent falls under category (a) mentioned hereinabove, therefore, this petition as well as the judgment of the Service Tribunal stand abated. However, the respondent is allowed further period of 90 days to have recourse to the available remedies before the competent forum.
THE END