ISLAMABAD: The National Logistics Cell of GHQ submitted an application on Thursday after a two-member court led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah rescinded its ruling on 50 petitions against the NLC management, raising a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court’s constitutional and regular benches.
The applicant, the DG of NLC, Quartermaster General, GHQ, claims that constitutional interpretation is at issue in this case.
Raja Saifur Rehman, the applicant’s attorney, objected, but the two-member bench rejected his argument.
The panel was considering the NLC’s appeal of the Federal Service Tribunal’s (FST) ruling granting its employees civil servant status.
Advocate Rehman noted that a number of constitutional issues needed to be interpreted in this case. Nevertheless, the bench postponed the judgment and rejected the objection.
The director general of the NLC then submitted an application to the Supreme Court.
“The petitioner department wishes to inform the concerned branch through this application that since the interpretation of Articles 240, 260, and 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan was involved in these cases, the cases were to be fixed before the constitutional bench,” the statement read.
The application claims that without taking Articles 240 and 242 into account, the FST incorrectly classified the NLC employees as civil servants.
“It is a known fact that a significant legal question concerning the interpretation of the constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 212, 240, 242, and 260, was necessary when deciding the CPLAs in order to determine the status of employees as civil servants or otherwise,” the statement continued.
The application claims that when the 26th Amendment went into force, “the 50 CPLAs filed by NLC were pending before the Supreme Court.” Article 191-A (4) is therefore completely applicable. It further stated that “all pending appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan immediately stood transferred to the constitutional bench in accordance with Article 191-A(4).”
According to the application, “it is therefore requested that the final judgment not be announced and that the matter be set for rehearing before the constitutional bench in light of what has been stated above, the 26th Amendment, the established principles of law, and the incorrect interpretation of Articles 212, 260, 240, and 242 by FST.”
It should be noted that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act has also been modified by the administration.
According to Section 2A of the Act, “The committee established under Clause 4 of Article 191-A of the Constitution shall, by means of a speaking order, determine the question where a question arises as to whether a cause, matter, petition, appeal, or review application falls within Clause 3 of Article 191-A of the Constitution and is to be heard and disposed of by a constitutional bench of another bench.”
