1. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This judgment will dispose of the Petitions Nos. D-2355 of 1996 and Nos. D-713, 714, 715 and 198 of 1997, as in all these Petitions common questions of law are involved.
2. Petitioner Syed Safdar Ali Shah (No, D-2355/1996) was employed as Cabin Crew on 19th August, 1975 and was placed in pay Group VI in 1993. At the time, the Petition was filed he was serving as a Senior Purser in Flight Service Department of Pakistan International Air Line. According to him, respondent Zia Pasha was junior to him but the latter was granted Pay Group No, VIII. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the respondent No,1 (PIA) be directed to pay him salary and allowances of Group No,VIII.
3. Petitioner Ejaz Ahmed Orakzai (No, D-713/97) was appointed as a Cargo Assistant of Flight Department on 13-10-1992. He has claimed that by the competent Authority he was approved for promotion/selection in Group No,VI, but instead the respondents Nos.3 and 4 viz Zia Pasha, and Murad Gulzar, were issued letters for above purposes, and the Petitioner without any justification and was ignored. He has challenged the appointments of the resuondents Nos.3 and 4 and prayed that the respondent No,1 be directed to grant him the Pay Group No,VI.
4. Petitioner Habib-ur-Rehman Soomro (No, D-714/1997) was employed as Flight Purser on 11-3-1993.
5. According to him, he was entitled to pay Group No,VIII and instead it was given to the respondents Nos.3 and 4. He has prayed that the respondent No,1 be directed to place him in Group No,VIII w,e,f, 26th April, 1996 and also grant him all consequential benefits.
6. Petitioner Nisar A. Shaikh (No, D-715/1997) was appointed as Flight Steward on 29-4-1997.
7. According to him, he was entitled to Pay Group No,VIII and instead it was granted to the respondents Nos.3 and 4. He has claimed that he shall be appointed in Group No,VIII from 26th April, 1996 and be granted all consequential benefits.
8. Petitioners Hameed Hayat, Ghulam Rasool and Mian Khuda Dino (No, 198/97) were employed in Food Service Division. According to them, they were entitled to Pay Group No,VI from 26th April, 1996.
9. The point for consideration in these matters is that whether or not after insertion of new section 2- A, in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by virtue of Act No, XVII of 1997, published in the Gazette of Pakistan, dated 10th June, 1997, these Petitions are still maintainable. Said section 2-A is as follows:- - "2-A. Service " under certain corporations, etc to be service of Pakistan.---Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act."
10. It is clear from above section that the petitioners are ' civil servants' for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including Disciplinary matters.
11. Mr. Nishat Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that these cases are of selection and not of promotions, as such, the petitions are maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. He has also argued that in spite of above section 2-A, still this Court has jurisdiction, as basically the issue is about the fitness of the petitioners for higher grade of pay. Close scrutiny of these Petitions reveals that, ex facie, the grievance of the petitioners is about their promotions in higher grade. This is also evident from the fact that they have challenged the promotions of the respondents named earlier. The issue of fitness, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, is not involved in these petitions.
12. Article 212 of the Constitution curtails the jurisdiction of High Court in respect of the Matter falling within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal, which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide all pleas including of mala fides, ultra vires of coram non judice.
13. The petitioners are now Civil Servants for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act and adequate remedy is available to them under the provision of said Act. These petitions are not maintainable. On 5-1-1998 after hearing the arguments, we had dismissed these petitions in liming and these are the reasons for the same.