ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was approached against the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that declared the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Service Regulations 2014 as statutory law.

Director General Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on Wednesday filed an appeal under Article 185(2) of the constitution against the IHC’s order dated 02-05-23.

He submitted that Obaidur Rehman Abbasi and Syed Mubarak Shah, employees of the CAA, are governed by service regulation framed by the CAA Board under Section 12 read with Section 27 of the CAA Ordinance, 1982. He mentioned that the CAA Board in its 192nd meeting on 08-04-2022 declared the approval of the conditional “Special House Building Grant” to be void ab initio and also amended the Regulation 74(2) of the CAA Employees Pay and Pension Regulations 2014 by omitting sub-regulation (2).

He stated that the respondents –Obaidur Rehman Abbasi, ex-senior Additional Director (Legal) and Syed Mubarak Shah, ex-senior Additional Director (APS) – claimed payment of conditional “Special Housing Building Grant” from CAA, which was not approved. They filed a writ petition on 16-05-22 after the amendment in the CAA Service Regulations 2014.

The IHC, on 02-05-23, passed an interim order by declaring CAA Service Regulations statutory in the negation of the settled law by the apex court. The IHC had failed to appreciate the law of the case in its true perspective while declaring CAA Service Regulations statutory and giving a pronouncement in favour of the respondents.

The IHC had erred in law by holding CAA Service Regulations 2014 statutory when this question has already been settled by the apex court. While declaring CAA Service Regulations statutory, the high court had erred in law by not following the ordains of Article 189 of the constitution.

The IHC also failed to appreciate the conditionality of Article 199(1) that the petition is not maintainable when alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy is available under the CAA Employees Appeal Regulations 2014 in the form of a “representation”, “appeal”, and “review”.

The IHC, while declaring Service Regulations 2014 statutory had failed to correctly read the ratio decidendi of para 12 of NESCOM case [PLDA 2016 SC 377]. The high court, while declaring CAA Service Regulations as statutory had erred in law by misreading para 50(ii) of Jawad Ahmed case [2013 SCMR 1703].

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023