SYED ARSHAD ALI MEMBER --- The appellant above-named being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11.07.2003, whereby major penalty of dismissal, from service was imposed upon the appellant under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant preferred departmental appeal to the respondent No, I the Finance Secretary which remained un-responded, hence this appeal within statutory period.
2. The appeal was abated on 10.05.2010 vide order of this Tribunal which is reproduced hereunder as:--- "Learned counsel for the respondents placed before us a copy of the order dated 07.04.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in C.P.No, D-604/2007 wherein it has been held that respondent HBFC does not have statutory rules of service". Besides, it is an admitted fact that the appellant, being an employee of House Building Corporation, is not a civil servant within the meaning of Section 2(i)(b) of the Civil Servants Act 1973, as Mouse Building Finance Corporation does not have backing of statutory rules and, therefore, the appeal shall abate in view of the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No, 1863/09 & others (Executive Council, Mama lqbal Open University , Islamabad through its Chairman & another v. Dr. M. Tufail Hashmi & others).
2. In view of the above, appeal stands disposed of as abated. The appellant, if so advised, may seek remedy before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
3. Parties be informed."
3. The learned counsel for the appellant moved an application (Misc. Petition No, 27/2015) for restoration of service appeal No, 890(K)CS.2003; Abdul Sattar Baloch v. Federation of Pakistan & others. In the accompanying affidavit, the appellant averred that the appeal was abated on 10.05.2010 in the light of the; judgment passed in Allama lqbal Open University case on the point of jurisdiction. Subsequently, appellant filed Const. Petition No, D 1286/2010. The Hon'ble High Court had ordered the disposal of appeal for filing the same before proper forum, hence this forum. The appeal was restored to its original position and number on 09.07.2015 in view of the arguments that the appointment of the appellant was made in the year 1988 and the rules of the respondent-organization were statutory, appeal was therefore restored and Misc.
Petition disposed of.
4. On 30.05.2016 the learned counsel for the respondents stated at the bar that the appeal be disposed of in view of the order of the Hon'bie Supreme Court dated 04.05.2016 passed in Civil Petition No, 415-K of 2015 State Life Insurance Corporation & another v. Sadaruddin Siddiqui & 3 another. Such order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is reproduced hereunder as:--- "Respondent No, 1 (respondent) is an employee of the petitioner-Corporation (employer). Aggrieved of some adverse order/action taken against him by his employer, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal which was allowed through the impugned judgment. The legal plea raised in this petition is that the learned Service Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction in the matter as the respondent is not a civil servant in terms of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Act). The respondent, who appears in person, by relying upon the judgment reported as Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Hamayun lrfan and 2 others (2010 SCMR 1495) and an order dated 9.12.2015 of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No, 300/2010 titled "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through its Chairman. Islamabad and another v. Abdul Hakeem Bhatti and another" submits that the employees of the petitioner-Corporation are civil servants and can approach the learned Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievances. it is settled by now that only a civil servant who is aggrieved of any violation of his terms and conditions can approach the learned Service Tribunal. Admittedly the respondent does not fall within the definition of "civil servant" given in law rather is an employee of a corporation, albeit a statutory corporation. The two judgments referred to by the respondent at the most contemplate that the regulations of Slate Life Insurance Corporation are statutory, but in no manner can the ratio thereof be deduced to mean that the employees have ever been considered, treated and held to be civil servants within the meaning of the Act entitling them to approach the learned Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievance(s). In light of the above, we are of the view that the learned Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on that account.
Resultantly, this petition is converted into an appeal, which (appeal) is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside".
5. In view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal is disposed of and the appellant may seek redressal of his grievance from the appropriate forum No order as to costs.
6. Parties are informed accordingly.