' Since the law point involved in the three appeals captioned above is the same, all the three appeals are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which Masood Ahmad will be described as respondent No, 1, Ghulam Rasool Sajid as respondent No, 2 and Muhammad Ashiq as respondent No, 3.
2. Increment of Masood Ahmad, respondent No, 1, was stopped for one year. He challenged the order in his grievance petitions. So far as Ghulam Rasool Sajid, respondent No, 2, is concerned, he was dismissed on 8th April, 1982 on account of an alleged misconduct committed by him.
Muhammad Ashiq also was dismissed on account of an alleged misconduct Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 challenged the orders of their dismissal in separate grievance petitions.
3. Admittedly all the three respondents were employed by WAPDA directly and were not deputationists. Since their prayer was for the setting aside of the orders by which action was taken against them, the question of terms and conditions of service was involved. By virtue of section 17(1-B) of WAPDA Act, 1958, the respondents are civil servants and thus the learned-Courts below had no jurisdiction to try their cases. There had been some controversy on the point of jurisdiction but now it has been resolved by the ruling of the Supreme Court delivered in 'F. U. Malik v. WAPDA' C.
P. No, 163/R of 1982 decided on 5th December, 1982 wherein it has been observed that all WAPDA employees are civil servants. The observations made are as under :- "We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that there could be no plausible excuse for the petitioner to have not availed of his right as a Government Servant under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (West Pakistan Act No, XXXI of 1958) because all the employees of the Authority are 'civil servants' as relevant clause of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as under :- ' It has been further observed :- "We agree with the finding of the learned Services Tribunal that the petitioner holding very responsible post of Senior Budget and Accounts Officer should have been aware of the provisions of section 17 (1-B) of WAPDA Act, 1958, as amended, and that the petitioner was rightly refused the condonation of delay in filing his appeal.
' Following the above-cited ruling of the Supreme Court, I hold that the respondents are 'civil servants' for the purposes of Services Tribunals Act and thus the learned Courts below had no jurisdiction.
4. As a result of what has been said above, I accept all the three appeals and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned Courts below, direct the return of the grievance petitions to respondents Nos. 1, 21`' and 3 for presentation to the proper forum. Present one of the respondents only.