SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to the Accountant-General, Balochistan, to examine whether the grievance taken by the respondent to the Balochistan High Court and decided by it was not relatable to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant and hence within the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal.
2. The factual background of the appeal is that the respondent while in service belonged to the District Management Group of the Federal Government.
' By a notification dated 13th of August, 1984, he was relieved by the Federal Government for taking up the appointment of Chairman, Balochistan Public Service Commission. The Notification which issued and was later published in the Official Gazette was as hereunder:- "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CABINET SECRETARIAT ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION ' RAWALPINDI THE 13th August, 1984.
' Notification ' No,PF.(18)/E.5. Lt.Col.(Retd.) Abdul Majeed Babar, an officer of District Management Group (PBS- 20), at present Joint Secretary, States and Frontier Regions Division, Islamabad, is transferred and his services are placed at the disposal of Government of Balochistan for posting as Chairman, Balochistan Public Service Commission with immediate effect and until further orders."
' The Balochistan Government issued the consequential notification on the 10th of September, 1984, which was as hereunder:- "Quetta, the 10th September, 1984.
' Notification ' No,7-1/84-SOI(S&GAD). On his services having been placed at the disposal of this Provincial Government vide Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division's Notification No,PF(18)/E.5, dated the 13th August, 1984, Lt.Col.(Retired) Abdul Majeed Babar (B.20/DMG) is appointed as Chairman, Balochistan Public Service Commission, Quetta, with immediate effect and until further orders, against the existing vacancy."
3. The respondent reached the age of superannuation on the 6th of August, 1985 whereupon he was continued in the same post by a notification dated 20th of August, 1985 as hereunder:- "On retirement from Government service on superannuation, Mr.Abdul Majid Babar, Chairman Baluchistan Public Service Commission is reemployed on contract with effect from 7-8-1985 for a period of five years, including the period he has already served as Chairman Balochistan Public Service Commission.
2. The terms and conditions of his contract employment will be notified in due course."
4. The terms and conditions of employment were settled and notified on the 13th of Fabruary, 1986.
The term and condition which is relevant to the issue in controversy in this appeal, relates to pay, which is expressed to be as hereunder:- "He will be entitled to the Minimum of Basic Pay Scale No, 21 as prescribed under the scheme of Basic Pay Scales of 1983 plus pension."
' On the 12th of December, 1984, the respondent addressed a letter to the Governor of Balochistan and the relevant portion of it i,e. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are reproduced hereunder:- "2. You would kindly appreciate that the inordinate delay in my promotion at the Federal level is causing me anxiety as well as financial loss. In addtion, as both the Members under me in the Commission are also in BPS-20, I am psychologically serving from a position of great disadvantage--a situation likely to adversely affect the effectiveness of this Commission.
3. In view of the position stated in para 2 above and the fact that I am serving against a post in BPS-21/22, I request that I may kindly be promoted in BPS-21 at the Provincial Government level in the interest of service and in order to save me from further anxiety and financial loss."
5. The notification dated the 13th of Fabruary, 1986, concerning 'Pay' was substituted by notification dated 23rd of November, 1987 as hereunder:- "In clause I "Pay" the following shall be substituted: He will be entitled to the benefits of B.P.S.21 as he was in receipt before the issuance of Notification No,40(82)/86-SOI(S&GAD) dated 13-2-1986."
6. The appellant, i,e. The Accountant-General Balochistan, declined to issue Pay Slip in terms of notification of the Balochistan Government and the specific objection was communicated on 20-1- 1988 in the following words:- "Since he was an officer of D.M.G. Group his pay and allowances should have been governed by the rules for such officers and no changes (upwards or downwards) should have been made without the consent of the Estt. Division. This case is exactly analogous to those of M.S. Marri, Jamali, Taj Naeem and Mukhtar Gul Secretariat Group officers. These officers were also allowed higher scales without the consent of the Establishment Division which was held wrong by the Estt: Division. Later on, however, that Division regularized their higher salaries as a result of repeated references by the Provincial Government.
3. In accordance with the provisions of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (Conditions and Service) Regulations 1984 notified by the Government of Balochistan, S&GAD Notification No,SOR(2)/ 28/S&GAD-80, dated 10-12-1984 (section 4(2) also Mr.A.M.Babar should have been allowed the pay and allowances which he was drawing as the Joint Secretary (B.20) to the Federal Government before joining as Chairman, Balochistan Public Service Commission. He was however allowed the benefits of B.21 vide S&GAD Notification No,40(82)/85- SO.I(S&GAD)/861-64 issued on 31-7-1985. It is not known whether these benefits were allowed with the approval of the Estt: Division.
If the approval had been obtained, a copy thereof may kindly be supplied to this office. If the approval had not been obtained it may be obtained no so that the payments drawn by him as a B.21 officer arc regularized. In the absence of the required approval all drawals in excess of his entitlement as B.20 officer will stand recoverable.
7. The respondent filed a Constitution Petition on 3-9-1988 complaining of the letter dated 20-1- 1988 issued by the appellant refusing to issue revised pay slip so that he may draw his salary in B.P.S.21. In the parawise comments submitted on the Constitution Petition, the appellant objected to the competency of the Constitution Petition by taking up the plea as hereunder:- "(II) The petition under reference is not admissible by a High Court on account of the fact that it relates to terms and conditions of a person in the service of Pakistan and such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal as provided under Article No,212(i) of the Constitution (Copy enclosed as Annexure "a").
(III) The petitioner should have taken up the matter with the Tribunal as law has provided adequate remedy by establishing such Tribunals to deal with such cases."
' On merits, the appellant in the parawise comments stated as hereunder:-
(i) " The petitioner was a D.M.G. Group officer, which falls under the Administrative control of the Estt: Division, Govt. Of Pakistan. That Division deals with the transfers, promotions, etc. Of such officers in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, Acts, Law and rules. Only that Division was competent to process the case of the petitioner and to allow him the pay of B-21 in accordance with the provisions of the relevant rules. Since he was not entitled to such pa the same was not allowed to him by the Estt: Division in spite of the recommendations of the Provincial Government. An intimation was accordingly sent to the Provincial Govt. By Estt: Division vide their letter No,PF(18)/E-5, dated 26-5-1988 addressed to Chief Secretar Government of Balochistan that the request to grant BPS-21 to M Babar could not be acceded to...........
(ii) "The office of the Accountant-General Balochistan has thus simple carried out the lawful instructions of the competent authority. The petitioner should have named the Estt: Division as one of the respondents in the petition under reference. Thus the petition is also be for non-joinder of necessary party, viz Estt: Division and deserves to rejected on this ground also."
8. The High Court in the impugned judgment noted the challenge to the competency of the Constitution Petition by recording that "maintainability of Petition was also challenged". However, this question of jurisdiction under the Constitution was not dealt with by the High Court and the argument before us has centred round the competency of such a Constitution Petition.
9. From the facts stated it is clear that the respondent was a Federal Government employee at the time when he was appointed as Chairman, Balochistan Public Service Commission. His terms and conditions, therefore, were to be governed by the Federal Government notwithstanding his posting in the Province. Another fact which appears very clearly from the record is that when he was appointed as a Chairman, Balochistan Public Service Commission, he was in B.P.S.20. Yet another fact clearly emerged out is that while in service he was not promoted to B.21 by the Federal Government at any stage. The question whether the Balochistan Government could promote him and whether the Accountant-General was not, as he expressly said, to enforce the orders of the C competent authority relating to the terms and conditions of the respondent, are questions which had to be determined by the Service Tribunal because the question as to what is term and condition of service and who is competent authority in the case required examination. The respondent had mainly contended that the appellant does not qualify as a departmental authority and the departmental authority was the Federal Government, and the Provincial Government and the appellant could not refuse to implement the order of the Balochistan Government in respect of the pay and the scale.
10. Explanation in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 defines the departmental authority in the'following words:- "Explanation: In this section, "departmental authority" means any authority, other than a Tribunal, which is competent to make an order in respect of any of the terms and conditions of civil servants."
' The Accountant General in his parawise comments as well as the subsequent submissions has taken up the position that he enforced the orders of the competent authority relating to the terms and conditions of the respondent as determined by the Federal Government and in doing so he is duty bound to ignore the orders passed by authority not so competent in respect of the respondent. The Accountant-General certainly qualifies as the departmental authority because it is that authority which issues salary slip which is the authorization to draw a particular pay. What should be contained in the salary slip is primarily for the Accountant-General to determine and it has to be in conformity with the law. In issuing the Salary Slip the Accountant-General is not performing a ministerial function of only transmitting an order but of determining the validity and the effect of that order also and to that extent it acts as a departmental authority. The peculiarity of the case of the respondent is that a part of the dispute relates to the period when the respondent was effectively in service under the Federal Government and the subsequent period is the post retirement period during which the Federal Government had no control to determine his terms and conditions of service though it had control over reemployment of the respondent. However, the dispute substantially is with regard to the period of service before superannuation when Federal Government was fully incharge of the terms and conditions of the respondent. Article 212 of the Constitution is pre-emptory in language and provides that "no other Court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of such administrative Court or Tribunal extends." The remedy to the Tribunal is available not only to those who are in service but also those who had been in service provided the dispute relates to their period of service.
11. In the circumstances we find that the Service Tribunal had the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction in the matter and that of the High Court was barred. As the matter had to be examined by the Service Tribunal on merits, we refrain from making any observation on the merits of the case. However, it appears to us that the respondent had been diligently pursuing his remedy for which the Service Tribunal will exercise its own discretion in the matter of condonation of delay/limitation if and when it is properly sought. The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The respondent is directed to seek the remedy before the Service Tribunal.