ISLAMABAD: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the plea of 12 senior officials of Inland Revenue Service, who had challenged their transfers to Admin Pool of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
The FBR recently moved several tax officials to a common pool based on their internal criteria such as integrity, performance, and reputation. Twelve officers stationed in Karachi challenged this transfer in the SHC and obtained stay orders in the last week of July 2024. The case of these tax officials was scheduled for a detailed hearing after the vacation, and the court after hearing the matter in detail has dismissed the civil suit challenging their plea of transfer to the FBR’s Admin Pool.
The order of the SHC stated the FBR issued two notifications dated 03.07.2024; prima facie for the transfer of officers of the Inland Revenue Service, admittedly civil servants. Twelve serving officers of the IRS have preferred this suit seeking to have their transfers deemed to be akin to OSD and quashed. The office has objected maintainability inter alia as to how a matter pertaining to terms and conditions of service of civil servants may be agitated in a civil suit; in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution.
‘Transfer to admin pool’: SHC suspends FBR notification
The sole determinant issue before this Court is whether the present grievance of the plaintiffs could be adjudicated in a civil suit; in view of Article 212 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court from time to time including in Ali Azhar Baloch.
Article 212 of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the service tribunals for adjudication of matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants.
The SHC’s order said that there is absolutely no cavil to the fact that the plaintiffs are civil servants. The impugned notifications clearly explicate that merely a transfer is contemplated therein, governed inter alia per Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. Paragraph 9 of the memorandum of plaint unequivocally expresses that the impugned notifications pertain to transfer, however, such transfers may be considered to be akin to being made OSD.
At the very onset, it is imperative to record that there is no mention of OSD in the impugned notifications and nothing has been articulated before the SHC to give the notifications any other meaning than that apparent from the plain verbiage thereof. It may also be a notable mention that the prayer clause is devoid of any constituent seeking a declaration that the impugned transfers be declared as being equivalent to having been rendered as OSD.
The Section 414 of the Services Tribunals Act 1974 mandates that any civil servant aggrieved by an order made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may appeal to the tribunal.
The proviso contained in Section 4(1)(b)15 prima facie pertains to decisions of a departmental authority determining fitness of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade. No such determination is discernible from the impugned notifications, hence, reliance upon the proviso by the plaintiffs appears to be misconceived.
In view of the foregoing, it is the deliberated view of this Court that the present grievance of the plaintiffs could not be adjudicated in a civil suit; in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court from time to time; including in Ali Azhar Baloch. It may suffice to conclude the requirements to be borne in mind for rejection of a plaint have been satisfied. Therefore, the plaint is hereby rejected per Order VII rule 11(d) CPC17, the SHC’s order added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024