Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.--This order shall decide the present appeal as well as ICA No, 295 of 2016 as common questions of law are involved in both the appeals.
2. This intra Court appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 seeks to challenge order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers in C.M. No, 3283 of 2016 whereby order dated 18.04.2016 through which Writ Petition No, 16799 of 2016 was decided was modified.
3. Facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1 was appointed as sweeper attendant by Technical Education .and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) on contract basis on 31.05.2011 after the death of his father who was also a sweeper in Government College Commerce, DG Khan. Respondent No, 1 approached TEVTA for converting his appointment on regular basis as a civil servant. As the needful was not done, the petitioner filed the writ petition which was allowed on 18.01.2016. The operative part of the said order reads as under: The petitioner should not be sufferer on account of the lapses on the part of the authorities. His appointment made vide Letter No, GCT/DGK/ 2011/1688, dated 13.05.2011 is ordered to be restored with its full force and the petitioner will be deemed to be in service as sweeper on the strength of office order dated 31.05.2011.
Subsequently Respondent No, 1 filed CM No, 3283 of 2016 for correction of order dated 18.04.2016 which application was allowed on 03.06.2016 and the operative part of order dated 18.04.2016 was modified as under I lis appointment made vide Letter No, GCT/DGK/ 2011/1688, dated 13.05.2011 is ordered to be restored with its full force and the petitioner will be deemed to be in service as sweeper on the strength of office order dated 31.05.2011 as a civil servant on regular basis.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that TEVTA challenged order dated 18.04.2016 in the present appeal but was giving up the said challenge as Respondent No, 1 has since been regularized in terms of Notification dated 11.03.2016. He, however, submitted that the modification of order dated 18.04.2016 made on 03.06.2016 was not tenable in as much as TEVTA was regulated by the Punjab Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority Act, 2010 under the terms of which it is a body corporate and is managed by a chairperson and fifteen members. It was further stated that TEVTA has framed its own service regulations for its employees and being a statutory corporation Respondent No, 1 could not have been ordered to be regularized as a civil servant.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No, 1 controverted the stance of the appellant's counsel and submitted that Respondent No, 1 was appointed in terms of Rule 17-A of Punjab Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions) Service Rules, 1974. He furthermore drew the attention of this Court towards orders whereby this Court in various writ petitions ordered for appointment of persons in TEVTA in terms of Rule 17-A of Punjab Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions) Service Rules, 1974. It was also submitted that these persons were then appointed by treating them as civil servants.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. It is an admitted fact that TEVTA is statutory body. The question, therefore, which requires determination is whether the employees of TEVTA are civil servants or not, TEVTA under the terms of its Act prescribes the terms and conditions of the employment of the officers and the other employees. In terms of Section 21 of the Act the employees of TEVTA are public servants. Punjab Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority Rules, 2011 have been framed under Section 23 of the Act which stipulates that the TEVTA shall formulate its own service regulations for its employees. The various provisions of TEVTA Act and the Rules framed thereunder clearly demonstrate that the employees of TEVTA are not civil servants as they are governed by their own service regulations and, therefore, Rule 17-A of Punjab Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions)
Service Rules, 1974 has no applicability to its employees.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Munawar Hussain Bukhari v. Appellate Authority/Tribunal Alipur District Muzaffargarh and others 2016 SCM R 1087 has held that the employees of the statutory corporations are not "civil servants" and do not come within the purview of Civil Servant Act, 1973 or Services Tribunal Act, 1973. A similar view was earlier expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a land mark judgment reported as Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministroy of Defence and others PLD 2006 Supreme Court
602. There is, therefore, no doubt that Respondent No, 1 being an employee of TEVTA was not a civil servant and could not be appointed as such. The fact that some other persons were termed as civil servants while being employed in TEVTA cannot persuade this Court to hold that the employees of TEVTA are civil servants in view of the law clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two aforementioned judgments.
9. The learned Single Judge in Chambers, therefore, fell in error in passing order dated 03.06.2016 whereby order dated 18.04.2016 was modified to the extent that service of Respondent No, 1 was ordered to be regularized as civil servant.
10.This appeal is accordingly allowed and order dated 3.6.2016 is set aside. 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.