SHAUKAT. ADZ, SIDDIQUI, J. -- Through instant Intra-Court Appeal, under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, appellant (Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation) has challenged the order dated 02.07.2008, passed by learned Single Judge (in chamber), in Writ Petition No, 1608 of 2006.
2. Brief facts gleaning out from the pleadings are that; appellant as per settled terms and conditions duly incorporated in the brochure, invited applications for allotment of plots from the employees of Ministries, Divisions, Attached Departments, Subordinate Offices, Members of regularly constituted groups/service of the Federal Government and members of superior judiciary i,e, Judges of Supreme Court, High Court and Federal Shariat Court, who were in service on 15.11.2003 against 75% quota, whereas those of autonomous/semi-autonomous government organizations and public sector corporations under the administrative control of the Federal Government were eligible against 8% quota. The employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) were not eligible under 75% quota and in the present case, Respondent No, 1 although inducted since long, initially in the T&T Department but on the cut-off date, he was serving in Pakistan Telecommunication and retired from there in year 2004, therefore, on cut-off date i,e, 15.11.2003 he was employee of PTCL an existing company. The claim of such employees that their right as Government Employee were protected legally, in fact relates to their right regarding terms of service such as salary, allowances, pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. Allotment of plot is not a part of service condition, hence, the Respondent No, 1 was not eligible to be considered under 75% quota, the order impugned has been passed without appreciating this material aspect.
3. Learned counsel for Appellant argued that, Honble Single Judge in Chamber has not appreciated the correct interpretation of law and the relevant statutes. Pakistan Telecommunication ' Company Ltd. (PTCL) is a company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 being a company "limited by shares" having liabilities of its members limited by Memorandum to the amount. It is neither an autonomous body nor a Federal Government organization, rather a company having independent juristic entity, own seal, can sue and be sued.
That the judgments quoted by Hon'ble Single Judge holding the status of the appellant as "civil servant" in service and as such a Federal Government Employee, is totally misconceived as according . to these case-laws such a person does not automatically becomes civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act. It was the insertion of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 which made such an employee "civil servant" specifically for the purpose of seeking remedy before that particular forum. In order to attain the status of civil servant, it is necessary that a person should be a member of all Pakistan service of civil servant of the Federation or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of Federation. The learned Single Judge in chamber also not appreciated that employees of the Corporation/PTCL are not being paid salaries from the Government exchequer nor they are serving for the Federation or any Provincial Government. That the services of PTCL are not governed under statutory rules. Even, if some shares in an industry, company or corporation vest with the Federal Government, yet the employees of a corporation company etc. or the same will not be treated as civil servants. Similarly, persons on contract, even though discharging their functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and likewise, as well as the deputationists from the Provinces to the Federal Government have not been granted protection of Civil Servants Act, 1973, therefore, they were excluded from the definition of "civil servant" and as per terms and conditions of the person of later category, laid down in Civil Servants Act, 1973 and as held in Mubeen-us-Salam case reported as PLD 2006 SC 602.
4. It is further submitted that, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation was established through Ordinance X of 1991 and as per Section 9 of the Ordinance employees of T&T stood transferred as employees of the Corporation, on the same terms and conditions to which they were entitled immediately before such transfer. Therefore, a civil servant is not entitled to claim and include any claim in the terms and conditions. It would be pertinent to mention that neither the allotment of plot nor house is mentioned in the terms and conditions of a civil servant. That any scheme designed for civil servants after 1991 would not confer any right on an employee of the Corporation.
Only right accrued can be carried forward and when a right is not existing and later a scheme is promulgated, it will not have retrospective effect. Section 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 states that Federal Government shall guarantee existing terms and conditions of the services. Only existing rights were carried forward from Corporation to PTCL. The terms and conditions which were applicable to the employees prior to their transfer were protected. No protection/rights for future schemes, laws etc. are envisaged anywhere.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No, 1, supported the impugned judgment by submitting that learned Judge in chamber has taken into consideration all legal and factual aspects. According to the learned counsel, respondent No 1 has been declared as Civil Servants certainly entitled against 75% quota of Federal Government Employees and learned Single Judge has declared so.
6 We have heard learned counsel and gone through the impugned judgment.
In our humble appreciation respondent No, 1 about his status and entitlement, therefore through application for allotment of plot, he applied against 8% quota of autonomous bodies/corporations.
In that category, against 8% quota he failed to meet with the eligibility criteria and perhaps this is the reason on the basis of which he travelled to broader horizon of 75% quota and made claim thereunder. The learned Single Judge (in chamber) has, therefore, failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and overlooked the documents annexed with the petition. The controversy is not with regard to status of respondent No, 1 as civil servant but his entitlement against 75% quota of Federal Government employee or 8% quota for employees of autonomous bodies and corporations. It is not the case of the respondent No, 1 that at the cut-off date, he was employee of Federal Government, rather his assertion is that by virtue of his status as Civil Servant, he was entitled to allotment of plot against 75% quota reserved for Federal Government Employees but the record verifies the fact that he had submitted his application for the allotment of plot against 8% quota, reserved for the employees of autonomous bodies and, therefore after retirement he could not have claimed for the allotment of plot against the quota reserved for Federal Government Employees.
7. His status as Civil Servant may not be disputed because he had enjoyed all the rights and privileges of the terms and conditions as a Civil Servant for the purposes of service but the fact is that for the purposes of allotment of plot, he opted for the category of autonomous bodies/Corporation employees and, therefore, he could not have taken a stance, contrary to his own request made through application for allotment. It is important to note that no quota is fixed for civil servants independently. The impugned judgment failed to consider this important' aspect of this case; and is, therefore, not tenable in the eyes of law.
9. In view of above, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2008 is set aside with the consequence that Writ Petition No, 1608/2006, filed by respondent No, 1 stands dismissed, however, there is no order as to costs.