AIRLINK 127.27 Decreased By ▼ -13.48 (-9.58%)
BOP 8.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-5.45%)
CNERGY 5.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.86 (-13.07%)
CPHL 67.10 Decreased By ▼ -7.45 (-9.99%)
FCCL 39.86 Decreased By ▼ -2.99 (-6.98%)
FFL 12.21 Decreased By ▼ -1.33 (-9.82%)
FLYNG 31.40 Decreased By ▼ -3.47 (-9.95%)
HUBC 119.00 Decreased By ▼ -8.28 (-6.51%)
HUMNL 11.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-5.45%)
KEL 3.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-7.11%)
KOSM 3.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.93 (-19.1%)
MLCF 60.87 Decreased By ▼ -6.22 (-9.27%)
OGDC 179.39 Decreased By ▼ -17.24 (-8.77%)
PACE 3.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-12.69%)
PAEL 37.01 Decreased By ▼ -3.60 (-8.86%)
PIAHCLA 13.58 Decreased By ▼ -1.51 (-10.01%)
PIBTL 7.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.79 (-10.01%)
POWER 13.41 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-3.59%)
PPL 131.91 Decreased By ▼ -13.37 (-9.2%)
PRL 24.26 Decreased By ▼ -2.69 (-9.98%)
PTC 17.43 Decreased By ▼ -1.92 (-9.92%)
SEARL 66.65 Decreased By ▼ -7.40 (-9.99%)
SSGC 29.22 Decreased By ▼ -3.25 (-10.01%)
SYM 12.17 Decreased By ▼ -1.35 (-9.99%)
TELE 5.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.79 (-12.36%)
TPLP 6.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.90 (-11.76%)
TRG 53.13 Decreased By ▼ -5.86 (-9.93%)
WAVESAPP 7.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-11.14%)
WTL 1.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-9.84%)
YOUW 3.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-7.76%)
AIRLINK 127.27 Decreased By ▼ -13.48 (-9.58%)
BOP 8.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-5.45%)
CNERGY 5.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.86 (-13.07%)
CPHL 67.10 Decreased By ▼ -7.45 (-9.99%)
FCCL 39.86 Decreased By ▼ -2.99 (-6.98%)
FFL 12.21 Decreased By ▼ -1.33 (-9.82%)
FLYNG 31.40 Decreased By ▼ -3.47 (-9.95%)
HUBC 119.00 Decreased By ▼ -8.28 (-6.51%)
HUMNL 11.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-5.45%)
KEL 3.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-7.11%)
KOSM 3.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.93 (-19.1%)
MLCF 60.87 Decreased By ▼ -6.22 (-9.27%)
OGDC 179.39 Decreased By ▼ -17.24 (-8.77%)
PACE 3.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-12.69%)
PAEL 37.01 Decreased By ▼ -3.60 (-8.86%)
PIAHCLA 13.58 Decreased By ▼ -1.51 (-10.01%)
PIBTL 7.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.79 (-10.01%)
POWER 13.41 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-3.59%)
PPL 131.91 Decreased By ▼ -13.37 (-9.2%)
PRL 24.26 Decreased By ▼ -2.69 (-9.98%)
PTC 17.43 Decreased By ▼ -1.92 (-9.92%)
SEARL 66.65 Decreased By ▼ -7.40 (-9.99%)
SSGC 29.22 Decreased By ▼ -3.25 (-10.01%)
SYM 12.17 Decreased By ▼ -1.35 (-9.99%)
TELE 5.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.79 (-12.36%)
TPLP 6.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.90 (-11.76%)
TRG 53.13 Decreased By ▼ -5.86 (-9.93%)
WAVESAPP 7.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-11.14%)
WTL 1.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-9.84%)
YOUW 3.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-7.76%)
BR100 10,801 Decreased By -878.5 (-7.52%)
BR30 30,667 Decreased By -2903.9 (-8.65%)
KSE100 103,527 Decreased By -6482.2 (-5.89%)
KSE30 31,478 Decreased By -2131.3 (-6.34%)

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued notices in a petition of 23 judges of lower judiciary including ATC judge Abual Hasnat Zulqarnain against their repatriation.

A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, on Friday, heard a petition filed by the judges of the lower judiciary of the federal capital.

The petitioners submitted that they are members of the Islamabad subordinate judiciary and they are aggrieved of order, dated 21.03.2025, passed by the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, whereby, the Judicial Service Appeal filed by respondent No1 was allowed and the petitioners were directed to be repatriated to their parent departments.

The petitioners’ counsels, Muhammad Nazir Jawad and Zahid Asif Chaudhary advocate argued that the impugned order has been passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction and the petitioners were condemned unheard while nothing relating to the petitioners was impugned before the Tribunal.

They also argued that the petitioners were not party to the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and the petitioners’ right under Article 4 and 10A of the Constitution have been violated.

They contended that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was limited to confirming, setting aside, varying or modifying the order under appeal and the Tribunal proceeded beyond the scope of section 6(1) of the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016.

The counsels further contended that the Tribunal is not vested with power to proceed suo moto, adding that the notification dated 18.03.2025 issued by the President, which had reconstituted the Tribunal, was not under challenge before the Tribunal.

They contended that the Tribunal cannot be deemed to be a Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution and the petitioners are not in the service of Pakistan within the meaning of Article 240 of the Constitution. They also said that the remedy of review provided under Section 7 of the 2016-Act is an independent remedy available to the petitioners and the said remedy was rendered infructous by recording observations as to its efficacy by the Tribunal.

They continued that the Tribunal is not vested with power to hold the provisions of any law/rules as ultra vires and the Tribunal is a quasi-judicial forum. They further said that the Tribunal while exercising powers under the 2016-Act does not act as a High Court and the petitioners have been rendered remediless.

Justice Arbab, after hearing the arguments, framed questions of law; 1) Whether the petitioners were party to the judicial service appeal and whether they have been condemned unheard? (2) Whether the learned Tribunal is vested with power to proceed suo motu? (3) Whether the Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of section 6(1) of the 2016-Act? (4) Whether the Tribunal was vested with powers to set-aside Notification dated 18.03.2025 issued by the President? (5) Whether the impugned order was passed by a tribunal duly constituted under section 3 of the 2016-Act? (6) Whether the rights to be dealt with in accordance with law and due process guaranteed under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution, include the right of adjudication of rights through validly constituted forums/tribunals? (7) Whether the learned Tribunal while dealing with a judicial service appeal can act as a High Court? (8) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in recording observations in the impugned order regarding the efficacy of remedies of review provided under section 7 of the 2016-Act and that of a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution? (9) Whether the learned Tribunal is deemed as tribunal constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution? (10) Whether the learned Tribunal is vested with power to adjudicate the question relating to vires of law? (11) Whether the instant petition is maintainable?

After framing the questions, issued notices to the respondents, including the newly arrayed respondent i.e. Ministry of Law and Justice. The respondents were directed to file detailed/comprehensive para-wise comments before the next date of hearing.

The IHC also issued notice to the Attorney General for Pakistan under Order XXVII of CPC, and appointed Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Sr ASC as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

200 characters