Kh. Muhammad Nasim J. This appeal, by leave of the Court, has been addressed against the order of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated 24.06.2022, passed in Writ Petition No. 2554 of 2022.
2. The pivotal facts of the case briefly stated are that Respondent No. 1, herein, was posted as Patwari at Patwar Halka Lehri, wherefrom, he was transferred to Patwar Halka Dhal Mehmood, vide transfer order dated 11.12.2021, while, the appellant, herein, was serving as Patwari at Patwar Halka Azizpur, wherefrom, he was transferred to Patwar Halka Lehri in place of Respondent No. 1, vide order 02.02.2022. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 herein, by filing the writ petition, challenged the transfer orders dated 11.12.2021 and 02.02.2022. Along with the writ petition, an application for interim relief has also been moved by Respondent No. 1. The learned High Court, vide its order dated 24.06.2021, sought para-wise comments from the respondents and suspended the orders dated 11.12.2021 and 02.02.2022. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has challenged the order (supra) of the High Court before this Court.
3. The intrinsic and sole point agitated by the learned Advocate representing the appellant is that the matter in hand pertains to the transfer of the civil servants, therefore, the writ petition before the High Court was not competent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 failed to rebut the stance taken by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates representing the parties and gone through the record made available with utmost care. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that Respondent No. 1, herein, challenged the transfer orders dated 11.12.2021 and 20.02.2022, by filing a writ petition before the High Court, whereas, under law, the matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, exclusively falls in the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the learned High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such matters. This Court time and again has held in a number of pronouncements that writ petition before the High Court is not maintainable in the matter falling in the definition of terms and conditions of service of the civil servant. Reliance may be placed on a case reported as "Tahir Farooq vs. Dr. Muhammad Qasim & 4 others" [2018 SCR 86], wherein, this principle has been discussed as follows: In view of the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the matters raised in the writ petition filed by the respondents clearly relate to the terms and conditions of civil servants, thus, the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted."
5. Similarly, in a case reported as "Azad Govt. and others vs. Syed Zaman Ali Shah and others"
[PLD 1991 SC (AJ&K) 71] wherein, it was observed as under: "8. Under Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, the Service Tribunal has been vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals against final orders in respect of terms and conditions of service. Terms and conditions of civil servants are large in number and so scattered that it is not easy to summaries them but the plain fact is that, some of them can be easily found in the Civil Servants Act in Chapter II. The title of Chapter II is "Terms and Conditions of service of civil servants." Section 3 which is the first section in the Chapter lays down as follows: The terms and conditions of Service of a civil servant shall be as provided in this act and the rules.
9. one of the Sections in Chapter II is Section 8 which deals with promotion. Another section namely Section 9 deals with posting and transfers while Section 11 deals with reversion to lower grade of service. Since these Sections are part of Chapter II mentioned above these three matters are terms and conditions of civil servants ...."
6. Moreover, the Apex Court of Pakistan also in a series of judgments has held that writ petition, in relation to any matter, connected with the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in respect whereof, the Service Tribunal has Jurisdiction, is not maintainable. For instance, reliance may be placed on a case reported as "Khalid Mahmood Wattoo vs. Government of Punjab and others" [1998 SCMR 2280) wherein, it has been observed as under: "6.... The consistent view of this Court has been that a writ petition or Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable by a Civil Servant in relation to any matter connected with the terms and conditions of service in respect whereof, the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction, in view of the provision contained in Article 212 of the Constitution ...."
7. In the light of the principle of law, discussed in the judgments (supra), in our view, the learned High Court, before examining the validity of an order which falls within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal should consider the point of jurisdiction, but in the instant case, the learned High Court without attending the point of jurisdiction has suspended the transfer orders dated 11.12.2021 and 02.02.2022. Thus, keeping intact the suspension order issued by this Court dated 14.07.2022, the learned High Court is directed to decide the main lis expeditiously.
In view of the above, this appeal is being disposed of in the terms indicated above. No order as to costs.