' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21-9-1993 passed by respondent No, 3, directing him, to deposit an amount of Rs,40,145.17 which had been received by the petitioner on account of arrears of salary after he was allowed BPS-11 and selection grade in BPS-16.
' The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed by the respondents as Machine Attendant in Grade-7 and subsequently he was allowed BPS-11 vide letter dated 9-9-1975 which was further confirmed by office order passed by respondent No, 3 dated 28-11-1992. The petitioner was also granted selection grade in BPS-16 by another order on the same date. However, subsequently by office order dated 29-5-1993 the aforesaid orders were cancelled ab initio by the respondent No,
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the said orders were passed without issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity of hearing, therefore, they were in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner then filed a departmental appeal in respect of the order dated 29-5-1993 but without any success and it was under such circumstances that the present petition was filed by the petitioner.
' Although the reversion of the petitioner in the original grade has not been challenged by the petitioner but his main contention before us has been that the respondents have no locus poenitentiae to recover the said amount from the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the same was erroneously paid to him. Reliance in this regard has been placed by Mr. Ahsanul Haque Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in the case of The Engineer-in-Chief through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v.
Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 and Controlling Authority, N.-W.F.P. Board of Technical Education, Peshawar and another v. Abdul Salam, Secretary, N.W.F.P. Board of Technical. Education PLD 1993 SC
200. In the first case the Supreme Court while applying the principle of locus poenitentiae held that the appellants in the case were not entitled to recover the amount in question erroneously paid to their ' employees. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the other case relied upon by the learned counsel.
So far as the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is concerned, there can hardly be any cavil with the same and we say so with great respect but it is pertinent to point out that the main question which requires consideration in the present case is, whether this Court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain the present petition in view of Article 212 of the Constitution. There is no controversy on the point that by virtue of section 17(1-B) of WAPDA Act, 1958 service in WAPDA is to be deemed as service of Pakistan, the employees of WAPDA are, therefore, to be considered at par with Civil Servants. Article 212 of the Constitution bars jurisdiction of this Court in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of the persons who are or have been in service of Pakistan. To deal with such grievances, Service Tribunals have been constituted which can deal with all matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of such persons except for matters which are expressly barred under the Service Tribunals Act. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it is admittedly a consequential order passed by respondent No, 3 after the orders in respect of fixation of grade of the petitioner were cancelled. Secondly, primarily and essentially the grievance of the petitioner relates to his conditions of his service. Such a matter is to be exclusively dealt with by the Service Tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution is expressly barred. Consequently, reference to the aforesaid cases by the petitioner is completely misconceived because, as has been earlier pointed out by us, although the principle laid down in the said cases appears to be applicable in the present case, but notwithstanding the same no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court since the matter falls outside the purview of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel, the case of The Engineer-in-Chief v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 was decided by the Supreme Court after an appeal filed by the respondent before the Service Tribunal had been decided by it. No doubt, in the second case a Constitutional petition had been filed directly before the High Court and thereafter the matter went before the Supreme Court in appeal but the petitioner in the said case was not a Civil Servant but he was an employee of N.-W.F.P. Board of Technical Education. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court was not barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable.
' In the result, we have no other option but to dismiss this petition together with M.A. No, 634 of 1993.
The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.