Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Raja Saif-ur-Rehman was appointed as Assistant Manager(Legal). A post of Manager(Legal) in BS-18 was advertised in 2004 by NDC. He was recommended for the post and appointed on 29.12.2004. It is alleged by him that due to hostile behaviour of Mr. Tanver Minto. Respondent No. 4. he submitted his resignation on 02.06.2008. The resignation was accepted. It is mentioned by the appellant that he had withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.06.2008 should not have been passed by which he was informed that his resignation had been accepted w.e.f. 16.06.2008.
2. Mr. Abdul Rehman Siddiqui has appeared for the respondents. He has not filed written comments but has raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. To resolve the objection, raised by the respondents, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 25.05.2009 is reproduced:-- "Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J.--After hearing the petitioner in person we are of the opinion that cause of action accrued to the petitioner against the department in the month of May, 2007 on reaching the age of superannuation whereas National Command Ordinance No. LXX of 2007 was promulgated subsequently in the month of December, 2007 which was made applicable with immediate effect i.e. 13.12.2007.
2. It is well settled principle of law that right of parties shall be settled/decided according to the law which prevailed when the cause of action accrued. Essentially, in this case cause of action for getting the pensionary benefits, accrued to the petitioner when he was retired in the month of May, 2007. Therefore, the reasons prevailed upon the Service Tribunal in non-suiting the petitioner are not acceptable.
3. Thus for the foregoing reasons instant petition is converted into appeal and case is remanded to the Service Tribunal to decide the same on merits expeditiously as far as possible but not beyond the period of two months preferably, from the date of receipt thereof. No order as to costs. "
5. In this appeal the cause of action had accrued to the appellant on 02.06.2008 when he had submitted his resignation. Since the cause of action had accrued after 13.12.2007, when the National Command Ordinance, 2007 (now National Command Authority Act, 2010) was promulgated, the appeal is hit by the said Ordinance. In the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court we hold that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as the cause of action had accrued to the appellant after 13.12.2007.
6. The Ordinance has now become an Act of Parliament. As slated above it is called the National Command Authority Act, 2010. Section 1 of sub-section (2) clearly says that it shall be deemed to have taken effect on 13.12.2007. Thus for any cause of action which had accrued before 12.12.2007 the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction but it shall not have jurisdiction for matters in which the cause of action had accrued after the said date. Section 7 of the Act defines the powers and functions of the Authority. Under clause(d) of this Section the Authority has been empowered to prescribe specific terms and conditions of the employees including but not limited to appointments, removals, promotions, transfers, integrity, liability, assessment and other related matters. Section 9 of the Act is with regard to the employees of the authority. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, judgment of any Court or tribunal all employees and officials working in the strategic organizations shall be deemed to be employees in the service of the authority. Under sub- section(2) of this Section the Authority shall regulate all the matters relating to terms and conditions of the service of the employees in the service of the authority including their appointment, removal, promotion and other related matters. All rules, regulations applicable to the employees of the authority and the strategic organizations are denied to have been validly made and shall continue as rules, regulations and procedures under this Act under Section 19(3) of the Act. Section 21 is very important. It provides that this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force particularly the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Thus the 2010 Act has overridden the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The employees of the Authority and Strategic organizations cannot seek protection under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Any action taken against them by the Authority is protected and the jurisdiction of all the Courts and administrative tribunals is barred under Section 22. Section 22 reads that any action or proceedings taken under this Act shall not be called in question in any Court or administrative tribunal. In view of the above provisions of law the National Command Authority has all the powers to regulate the terms and conditions of the service of its employees. The terms and conditions of employees in other strategic organizations are also to be regulated under this Act. Since the appellant was in service of the strategic organization, he was governed by the National Command Authority Ordinance, 2007, now Act of 2010. Hence for any action taken against him by the respondents relating to terms and conditions of his service including request for retirement and subsequent request for withdrawal of the request he could not make a grievance in this Tribunal since its jurisdiction is barred by Section 22 ibid.
7. In view of the above, we hold that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter. The appeal is thus dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.