mr. justice tassaduq hussain jillani mr. justice nasir-ul-mulk mr ...

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 39/2010, 1150/2010, 1162/2010, 142-K/2009, 177-
K/2010, 178-K/2010, 228-K/2010, 57-K/2011, 63-K/2011, 65-K/2011, 66-
K/2011, 83-K/2011, 91-K/2011, 135-K/2011, 136-K/2011, 137-K/2011, 188-
K/2011, 232-K/2011, 75-K/2012 AND 82-K/2012
46
decide appeals in view of the law laid down in Muhammad
Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 62) and
Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan
(PLD 2007 SC 681). The question of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 199 of the Constitution was not considered. The
Court relying on these two judgments and Pakistan
Telecommunication Company Ltd. V. Muhammad Zahid (2010
SCMR 253) held as under:-
“10. Now coming towards the definition of a
person in 'corporation service' or a person in
'government service', as defined in section 2(c)
and (d) of the RSO, 2000. Such persons can
be subjected to the RSO, 2000 but keeping in
view the definition of the 'civil servant' under
the Civil Servant Act, 1973 as well as the
dictum laid down in Muhammad Mubeen-us-
Salam's case (ibid), only those employees can
approach the Service Tribunal, who fall within
the definition of civil servant', holding posts in
connection with the affairs of the Federation.
As far as the remaining categories of
employees, including the contractual ones;
are concerned, if they are aggrieved of any
adverse action, the Service Tribunal is not the
appropriate forum for redressal of their
grievance, in view of above conclusion,
because it is a forum constituted under Article
212 of the Constitution for the redressal of
grievance of those employees, whose terms
and conditions are settled under Article
212(1)(a) of the Constitution. Similarly, any
action taken against such persons shall not
be questionable before the Service Tribunal as
it is not meant to provide a forum to the
employees, whose services are governed by
non-statutory rules or who do not fall within
the definition of a person in 'government
service' as defined in section 2(d) of the RSO,
2000. Admittedly, in the present case the
employees of AIOU, SME Bank and Pakistan
Steel Mill, who approached the Service
Tribunal for redressal of their grievance, were