IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.~ Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed for declaring the impugned orders dated 8.6.1994, 24.6.1992 and 14.10.1991 passed by respondents Nos.
1 to 3 as illegal, unlawful,, perverse, based on misreading, non-reading of evidence, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and with the direction to respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner into his service alongwith consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of Pakistan Railway on 20.11.1977 as Assistant Station Master in the year 1980. The petitioner was posted as Ticket Collector when he was removed from service vide impugned order dated 14.10.1991. Earlier a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner and after the inquiry he was dismissed. The petitioner claims that the Railway Authority due to prejudice has passed the abovesaid order, as the petitioner challenged his transfer order dated 31.1.1991 before the respondent No. 2 under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Thereafter the petitioner served a grievance notice dated 9.1.1992 and he find grievance petition on 28.1.1992 under Section 25-A of the said Ordinance before the Labour Court, in which the written statement was submitted by the respondents but some was dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 24.6.1992. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 4.7.1992 before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 1 which was also dismissed on 8.6.1994. Both the judgments dated 24.6.1992, 8.6.1994 and impugned removal order dated 14.10.1991 have been challenged through this petition. The writ petition came-up for hearing on 14.7.1994. On 24.7.1994 an. Order was passed that petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the quarter in question. The case continuously was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the parties.
Thereafter this writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 16.10.1994. During the pendency of this writ petition in the year 1995 the petitioner Altaf Hussain died and his legal heirs were impleaded as party/petitioners.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised preliminary objections that the writ petition is not maintainable as after the induction of Article 2-A in the Federal Service Tribunal Act the employees of the Railway Authority have become civil servants and the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the service; hence this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition due to bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; further contends that the bar of 2-A has retrospective effect and will affect the matter already pending before the Courts as reliance is placed upon the reported judgments 1999 SCM R 197, 2000 SCM R 179, 959 and 1216.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the preliminary objections on the grounds that the civil servant, Altaf Hussain, father of the petitioners has since died and the petitioners being legal heirs have been impleaded as party, and as the petitioner are not civil servants, they cannot move before the Federal Service Tribunal; hence this petition is maintainable, In this respect reliance is placed upon the reported judgments 1991 SCM R 1192, PLC 1989 C.S. 741. It is also contended that the petitioners have no other' adequate and efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order, and if the impugned order is set aside, the benefits including pensionary benefits of the petitioner Altaf Hussain deceased can be given to the petitioners (legal heirs of Altaf Hussain).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents attached with this writ petition. The first question which requires to be determined and decided is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition or not. There is no cavil to the proposition that after the induction of 2-A in the Federal Service Tribunal Act matters relating to-the terms and conditions of civil servants can only be agitated before the Federal Service Tribunal and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction due to bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution. The matter relating to terms the arising before the induction of Section 2-A can be considered and decided by the Tribunal while treating the petitioners as civil servants. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the induction of 2-A even the cases cannot be decided by Courts other than the Tribunal constituted under Article 212(b) of the Constitution. I am fortified by the view taken by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case-law relied upon by the respondent's learned counsel.
The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has not been properly answered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while on the other hand the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioners are not the Govt, servants and are the legal heirs of the petitioner and cannot approach to the Federal Service Tribunal.
As the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service and the petitioners, can only agitate the matter before the Federal Service Tribunal, this Court cannot entertain this petition even if the termination order passed by the respondent is without lawful or the order is liable to be set aside.
As regards the contention that if the impugned orders are set aside the petitioners/legal! Heirs of Altaf Hussain will get the benefit of his service, salary and allowance etc. And the pensionary benefits, that cannot be made basis for entertaining the same as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the service, In writ jurisdiction it cannot be held that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside; hence this writ petition is not maintainable, therefore, is dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment I cannot lay my hands by discussing the conduct of the petitioners/legal heirs of Altaf Hussain. This Court vide order dated 24.7.1994 allo-wed the petitioner to retain the quarter being employee of the Railway. Admittedly he died in the year 1995 while the conduct of the legal heirs is contumacious and they kept the possession of the abovesaid quarter under the shelter of^said order and did not voluntarily vacate the same, while they had no entitlement to retain the possession after the death of said Altaf Hussain inspire of the pendency of the abovesaid writ petition. Thereafter on the application of the respondents the Court directed on 20.8.2001 to the petitioners to vacate the said quarter within three months; since then they did not even pay any single panny to the department, therefore, such type of persons are not entitled to the discretionary relief as prayed in the writ petition.