High court employees appeal against administrative decisions

ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench Wednesday sought within 10 days replies from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and Peshawar High Court (PHC) over the right of High Court employees to appeal against the administrative decisions.

A six-member constitutional bench of the apex court — headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan — heard the case. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Musarrat Hilali were the other bench members.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question was if there was an administrative decision against a High Court employee, where would the appeal go? At this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that under Article 10-A of the Constitution, a fair trial was the right of every citizen, including employees of High Courts. “The judge or the chief justice may be wrong, hence it is necessary to make rules,” Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked.

A representative of Islamabad High Court informed the bench that rules were being made by the Islamabad High Court and employees were being given the right to appeal. He further told the bench that the formation of a two-member tribunal was also under consideration for the appeals of employees.

Similarly, the bench dismissed as withdrawn a petition filed by the PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan against a recent amendment made to the Election Act.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, had raised some technical objections to the petition adding that they accepted the registrar’s objection and after removing those objections, they will file a fresh petition. “If I were in your place, I would have filed it again by now,” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail told Raja. “Learning from you, we will do the same,” Salman Akram Raja replied. He further submitted they had filed the petition before the President’s ratification of the Amendment Act adding that it should have been filed after the President’s approval. Later, the bench dismissed as withdrawn, the appeals against the registrar’s office objections.

Separately, the constitutional bench adjourned for four weeks a case related to Royal Palm Golf and Country Club. Additional Attorney General told the bench that 11 companies had taken interest in the advertisement; however, only one company gave the bidding.

Barrister Ali Zafar, counsel for Royal Palm Club, told the court that a single company that offered the bidding was not financially strong adding that the Club that had earlier offered the bid was better. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that the court had taken suo motu cognizance and now it was being said that there had been less bidding than before. Justice Amin asked Ali Zafar as to why he did not participate in the new bidding. Ali Zafar replied that being the party to the case, they were not allowed to participate in the bidding.

The bench, however, asked Ali Zafar to match the new bidding. The bench also asked the additional attorney general whether they were considering re-bidding, as there was no competitor in the bidding process. The additional attorney general submitted that a committee had been constituted for finalising the bidding process in three weeks. He also informed the bench that a report will also be submitted to the bench on the next date of hearing.

Justice Amin observed that they were trying to resolve this issue. Ali Zafar informed the bench that the audit conducted on the court order has been completed adding that the case has been going on since 2019. He further submitted that a new concept of implementation had come in the Supreme Court. The bench, however, observed that the implementation bench has no legal validity under the scope of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that when institutions didn’t work, a space was created adding that every institution should do its job. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for four weeks.

Meanwhile, the constitutional bench disbanded a matter related to the appointment of a judge in the Peshawar High Court. The bench referred the matter to the Judicial Commission for the formation of a new constitutional bench to hear the instant matter. During the hearing, Justice Musarrat Hilali observed that two members of this bench, including Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, were part of the Judicial Commission, hence they could not hear cases of such nature.