KARACHI, Feb 16: The Federal Service Tribunal (FST) has admitted appeals praying for staying the operation of the order of the SSGC management (respondent) whereby appellants are required to appear in IBA test.
The FST bench, comprising Akbar M. Memon and Barkat Ali Baloch, while admitting the appeals for regular hearing, subject to all just exceptions, ordered that status quo be maintained till comments were filed.
The respondents are required to file comments on the main appeal as well as on the stay application 10 days prior to the date fixed with direct copy to counsel for the appellants. The matter will come up on April 6 for comments/ objections and arguments.
A division bench of the Sindh High Court had dismissed 10 petitions of over 300 Sui Southern Gas Company employees who had challenged the credibility and locus standi of the IBA tests for their removal from service.
The bench, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Ali Aslam Jaferi, had not found their petitions maintainable as the High Court could not exercise jurisdiction in service matter. The petitioners were directed to approach the FST for the redressal of their grievances.
In view of urgency in the matter the appellants went to the FST which heard Barrister Kamal Azfar, Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, M. L. Shahani, M. M. Aqil Awan, Shabbir Ahmed Awan and Mohammed Nawaz Sheikh, advocates for the appellants, on an urgent application moved by them for taking up the appeals, which have been fixed for preliminary hearing on April 4, 8 and 9.
At the same time, they had prayed for staying the operation of the order June 12, 2001, by the respondents, whereby the appellants were required to appear in the IBA Test.
The FST order noted that since the impugned order dated June 12, 2001 appears to have been issued by the respondents after the absorption of the appellants as a result of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal on April 13, 2001 and considering the urgency in the matter, it allowed these applications to be taken up today.
The FST passed the order keeping in view the order passed by the SHC in CP No 1515/2001 and others whereby the High Court after granting stay, had required the appellants to approach this Tribunal for the redressal of their grievance.
The crux of the arguments, advanced by the counsel appearing for this set of appellants, was that in the judgment passed by this Tribunal on April 13, 2001, the respondents were required to absorb the appellants on the same line as was done in case of Naraindas. The respondents did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment dated April 13, 2001, as such, according to the counsel appearing for the appellants, judgment rendered by this Tribunal had attained finality. It was contended by the advocates that the respondents, in order to flout the judgment of this Tribunal, had issued the impugned letter dated June 12, 2001 whereby the appellants were required to appear in IBA Test for the purpose of ascertaining their suitability and fitness, which word was not at all available in service rules of the respondents.
By issuing the said letter they intend to change the terms and conditions of the service of the appellants, the counsel had argued. It was also argued that in identical case of Naraindas and others status quo had been ordered on Feb 9, 2002, as such, till the parties are heard similar concession be extended to the present appellants on the rule of consistency as in other cases viz that of Saleem Mustafa Sheikh, the incumbents were not put to such a test. It meant that the present appellants have been discriminated against.
“In such state of affairs, it would be appropriate to admit these appeals for regular hearing subject to all just exceptions, and till comments are filed status quo be maintained. Security as per rules. The respondents are required to file comments on main appeal as well as on stay application 10 days prior to the date fixed with direct copy to counsel for appellants. To come up on 6.4. 2002 for comments/objections and arguments”, the FST order said.
The petitioners had moved the court against an order of the respondent, SSGC, requiring of them to appear in test to be conducted by the IBA for ascertaining the fitness of the petitioners. They were dismissed from service for being political appointees.
The petitioners had invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
It was case of petitioners that on June 12, 2001 the SSGC management asked them to appear in aptitude test conducted by the IBA for their fitness and suitability for permanent employment. They had prayed the court to ask the SSGC management to comply with the Supreme Court and FST judgments.
The thrust of the petitioners’ counsel was on whether or not the SSGC was empowered to order fitness test through the IBA. It was contended by some of the counsel that raison detre for the IBA test was being misinterpreted by the department. Their contention was that “fitness” was to determine to capability to hold a “particular post” but the department (SSGC) was interpreting it for “any” post and removal from service. It was argued that IBA test had not been defined and what were its objectives.
It was their contention that the action of the department authority was mala fide because it wanted to dislodge the judgments of the Supreme Court and the FST.