SHOUKA T ALI MEMON, MEMBER-I -- All these appeals arise out of common impugned order dated 21.02.2017, therefore, all are being disposed of by this common judgment. However , appeal No. 318/2017 is treated as a leading case. The material facts as per Annexure "A" of the memo. of appeal (impugned order) which even otherwise is an admitted document from the side of respondent, in all. 213 Police personnel upon the recommendations of the enquiry committee, held in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in HRC No. 16082-S/2015, dated 23.12.2015, were discharged from service and the name of the appellant appears at Sr. No. 54 of this order . The departmental appeal of the appellant stood rejected by the Respondent No. 02 vide communication dated 15.03.2017, therefore, the appellant is before this Tribunal praying as under:-- "It is humbly prayed on behalf of the Appellants above-named that this Hon'ble T ribunal may be pleased too:---
(a) Hold and declare that the appellant was validly appointed as Constable BPS-5 and no irregularity or illegality has been committed in his appointment.
(b) Hold and declare that the case of appellant does not fall within the purview of the orders passed by the apex Court in HRC No. 16082/S-2015 nor under order passed on 22.12.2016 in CPLA Nos. 634, 635, 644, 645, 646-K of 2016 hence the impugned original and appellate order are whimsical, capricious , fanciful, illegal, void ab initio, coram non judice and mala fide.
(c)Hold and declare that the Police Rules under which the, appellant has been taken to task as alleged, are implied repealed by virtue of Section 11 of Remov al from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as such the impugned original and appellate order are illegal, void ab initio, coram non judice and mala fide on, this ground also.
(d) Hold and declare that after discharging/dismissing the appellant for qualifying NTS test is quite illegal as the said process was not required by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in order dated 26.12.2016 for serving constables.
(e) Set aside the impugned original and appellate orders passed by the Respondents No. 3 and 2 and reinstate the appellant with all back benefits and they are entitled for their all unpaid salaries too.
(f)Ad-interim relief is also prayed.
(g) Award any other relief as deemed just and proper in the circumstances."
The case of the appellant is that he was appointed in the year 2013 after due process as Constable in BS-05 and also underwent scheduled training but he alongwith others, was not paid a single penny towards salaries for performing his duties. When a correspondence was made between the respondents for release of salaries, their case was confused/mixed up with other police personnel who were recruits of the Sindh Reserve Police, against whom enquiry was conducted under orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court although the appellant had no nexus with those recruits of SRP. The main plea of the appellant is that the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 is in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.12.2016 in CPLA Nos. 634-K, 635-K, 644-K, 645-K and 646-K of 2016, while their case is different, thus does not fall within the purview of the judgment/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.12.2015 as such impugned order be declared as prayed with all consequential reliefs.
3. In his written statement, the respondent No. 1 has stated that the petitioners were discharged from service by the SSP Hyderabad after they were declared as illegal appointees by the scrutiny committee formed in pursuance of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HRC No. 1608-2-S/2015 and their matter has already been disposed of after the order of Supreme Court dated 26.12.2016. Hence, the petitioners are required to appear in reexamination test to be conducted through NTS and those successful will be reinstated in service.
4. The reply of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is to the effect that the impugned order is for all ex-police personnel who were irregularly appointed from 2012 to 2015 in SRP and other districts and later on discharged/dismissed from service on the basis of enquiry conducted by the committee.
Heard the arguments.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.12.2015 only applies to the police personnel of the SRP and not to the employees recru ited otherwise in District Police, therefore, the impugned order does not apply to the appellants. It is next argued that although the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 is silent about the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.12.2016 in Civil Petition for leave to Appeal Nos. 634-K, 635-K, 644-K, 645-K and 646-K of 2016 yet respondent No. 3 appears to have been influenced of it which is not only illegal but void ab initio thus, impugned order is not sustainable.
6. Conversely , the learned Addl. A.G. submitted that no doubt the impugned order does not have any reference of subsequent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.12.2016 although later in point of time yet the same has got a binding effect and cannot be ignor ed, rather be taken as a. guideline. Learned Addl. A.G. referred to this Tribunal order dated 07.02.2017 in Execution Application No. 30/2017 in Appeal No. 1288 of 2016 (Shayan Qureshi v. Govt. of Sindh & others ) wherein relying upon orders of apex Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 634- K, 635-K, 644-K, 645-K and 646- K of 2016, we have observed that it applies to all the police personnel employed from 2012 to 2015 and as such, the execution application was disposed of.
7. It will be relevant to observe that vide order dated in Execution Application No. 30/2017 in Service Appeal No. '1288/2016, we have disposed of the execution application holding that the subsequent order of the apex Court dated 26.12.2016 applies to all the employees in police service employed from 2012 to 2015. Dissatisfied with our order , petitioner Shayan Qureshi. preferred Civil Petition No. 155-K/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined vide order dated advising the petitioner to avail the concession given by the apex Court vide order dated 26.12.2016 and appear in the reassessment/re-examination process as may be held by the Centralized Re-examination Committee.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find the case of the appellants different from the case of Shayan Qureshi, thus, dismiss these appeals.