' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, ACTG. C.J.---Chairman, WAPDA and two others, with the leave of this Court, have challenged under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 20-11-1994 allowing the appeal of the respondent and declaring him entitled to get BS-17 with effect from 13-10-1983 when he was promoted as Revenue Officer.
2. Brief facts of the case noted in the memorandum of appeal are that the respondent held the post of Junior Clerk on 1-9-1959, when the respondent and other staff of the Electricity Department of the Government of the Punjab were transferred en bloc to work under WAPDA as deputationist.
The respondent continued to work under WAPDA where he was also confirmed in various capacities and eventually on 1-1-1980 he was promoted as Senior Superintendent in BS-16 under WAPDA. On 28-1-1982, WAPDA (Power Wing) Commercial and Revenue Officer Rules, 1982, were enforced whereunder 25% of the existing employees were to be appointed on promotion or transfer to the post of Revenue Officer etc. The respondent in due course was approved for promotion but he was required to pass the prescribed departmental examination within two consecutive attempts. In this case there is no dispute that the examination was held after 13-10-1983. The appointment order of the respondent further manifests that the promotees were appointed as Junior Revenue Officer in BS-16. Till such time the condition of passing the departmental examination was satisfied, the appointment was to be treated as transfer against a post in the same grade. The respondent made first representation on 21-5-1988. Ultimately, he filed . Another representation whereupon he was informed that his request to be awarded Grade-17 was without any merit and had been turned down. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed Writ Petition No,5059 of 1991 seeking a direction against Director (Admn.), WAPDA and others to grant him BS-17. Since by that time the decision dated 1-2-1989 had already been conveyed to him, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. He was also intimated that his failure to pass the prescribed departmental examination, disentitled him to get BS-17 with effect from 26-11-1983. It was against this order that an appeal was filed by the respondent before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 14-12- 1991. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned order dated-20-11-1994 accepted the appeal and declared the respondent to be entitled to BS-17 with effect from 13-10-1983 when he was promoted as Revenue Officer. This appeal was obviously contested by WAPDA. It was, inter alia, pleaded by the appellants before the Punjab Service Tribunal that the appeal was not maintainable under section 4(i), proviso (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. It appears that the learned Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, had not adverted to the question of the maintainability of appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was also urged before the Tribunal that it was not possessed of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the service matter of an employee of WAPDA and that it was the Federal Service Tribunal which held the jurisdiction.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide paragraph 3 of the leave granting order which reads as under:-- "In support of this petition it is contended that as the respondent was an employee of the Authority and was seeking relief in respect of a post to which he had been appointed by the Authority, the Provincial Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain his appeal; as such the judgment of the learned Tribunal was without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Authority was competent to lay down conditions in the nature of qualifications for promotion to higher appointments and as the respondent had not fulfilled the condition upon which he was promoted as Revenue Officer the Authority was competent to revert him to the post of Senior Superintendent.
' The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted."
4. Mr. M. Salim Chaudhry, learned ASC representation the appellants reiterated his contention that the respondent having ceased to be the employee of Government of Punjab and having become the employee of WAPDA by operation of law, the Punjab Service Tribunal was devoid of jurisdiction to entertain, the appeal. In this context reference was made to Article 12 of (Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970 (P.O. No,1 of 1970). Article 12(1) (c) of the said P.O. No,1 of 1970 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants reads as under: "12(1)...........................
(c) any authority constituted by the Provincial Government under the said Act and any officer or other person appointed for the purposes of the said Authority by the Provincial Government shall be deemed to have been constituted or appointed by the President."
5. Conversely the respondent who appeared in person urged before us that he continued to be the employee of the Government of Punjab on deputation to WAPDA, therefore, he has not remained the employee of WAPDA and as such the Punjab Service Tribunal was possessed of jurisdiction to decide his appeal. Since the learned Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal had not adverted to the plea of the lack of jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal, it would be worthwhile to refer to Article 12(1)(c) of P.O. No,1 of 1970 which, inter alia, provided that any Officer or other person appointed for the purpose of the WAPDA by the Provincial Government was to be deemed to have been appointed by the President. The implication is that any employee of the Provincial Government or any other authority constituted by the Provincial Government were to be treated as the employee of WAPDA by the deeming clause (c) (ibid). Again under section 17(I-B) of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), service under the Authority has been declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973). We have already held that the deputation of the respondent, he held in WAPDA, has been severed by virtue of Article 12(1)
(c) (ibid). The respondent has thus, ceased to be the employee of the Government of Punjab and by operation of law he has become the employee of WAPDA amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal:
6. We have decided to refrain from making any observations on the second contention, on which leave had been granted in the case, lest it should adversely effect the case of the parties before the Federal Service Tribunal to which we intend to remand the case for disposal.
7. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the instant controversy could not have been decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellants is accepted, the impugned judgment/order of the learned Chairman, Punjab Service Tribunal, is set aside which has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction in the present case which did not vest in him.
8. We would, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal with no order as to costs. However, we would remand the case to the Federal Service Tribunal with the direction that the appeal filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal shall be treated as service appeal pending before it, which will be decided expeditiously but not later than 90 days, after notices to the parties concerned in accordance with law.