The appellant is aggrieved by the observation in the order dated 11.09.2012 opining that the appellant was "rightly promoted on 03.06.2011" after the incumbent Medical Superintendent retired on 15.03.2011.
2. Earlier this Court by order dated 13.02.2012 passed in W.P. No. 17198/2011 titled Dr. Muhammad Fayyaz v. Government of Punjab etc. Had directed the respondent Secretary to decide the petitioner's grievance against failure to promote the petitioner. The decisions by the respondent to promote the petitioner w.e.f 03.06.2011 is now challenged in this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant petition is maintainable because the employees of Auqaf department are not civil servants. He relies on the judgment of this Court given by the learned Single Judge reported as Masud-ul-Hassan Qureshi v. Secretary to Government and Chief Administrator of AuQaf(NLR 1991 Service 31).
4. It is an admitted position that the controversy in issue concerns the terms and conditions of service of the appellant. Impugned order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the respondent Secretary refers to seniority and other service features of the appellant's cadre. The judgment of this Court in Masud-ul-Hassan Qureshi's case (supra).Is based on the view that because the office of the Chief Administrator Auqaf is a statutory office, therefore. Auqaf Department is not a department of the Provincial Government. The Auqaf department is mentioned in the Rules of Business 2011 of the Provincial Government and enjoys budgetary allocation by the provincial government. It functions under the direction of the executive hierarchy of the Provincial Government. To our minds, the service of the Auqaf department is a service of the Province in terms of the case Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and another (PLD 2006 S.C.602). Consequently, the appellant is a civil servant. The appellant has a remedy of departmental appeal or thereafter remedy before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. The points raised in this appeal are such that these ought to be considered by the statutory fora on account of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution. .