1. ASSESSMENT OF SERVICE TRIBUNALS
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2014
Compiled by:
Sahar Saqib
Intern
Legal Department, PIPS

2. Assessment of the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2014
Introduction
The Service Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2014 had been unanimously adopted by the National
Assembly on Friday, June 6th 20141 and was introduced by Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-
Baltistan.2 The Standing Committee in the National Assembly, after thorough examination of the
Bill, proposed a single amendment to the Bill3. The Bill, which had seen opposition previously,
was also unanimously passed in the Senate of Pakistan4 and the amendment was proposed by
Senator Rafiq Rajwana5.
The Service Tribunals Act, 1973 enshrines the criterion for the selection and appointment of the
members and chairmen of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) as well as conferring powers for
the implementation of its orders and how to allot and spend its budget independent of external
interference from other government bodies.
Such an agenda is in tow with the wishes of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as he
expressed in a historic address to civilian officers in Peshawar in April 1948. His address was
vital in that it laid down the general principles of bureaucracy that are guidelines for all civil
servants. The following is an extract of his address:
“The services are the backbone of the state. Governments are formed. Governments are defeated.
Prime Ministers come and go, ministers come and go, but you stay on. Therefore, there is a very
great responsibility placed on your shoulders…your duty is only to serve that government loyally
and morally but, at the same time, fearlessly, maintaining your high reputation, your prestige,
your honour and the integrity of your service.” He further added that “political pressure…leads
to nothing but corruption, bribery and nepotism…nothing but disservice to Pakistan.”
The Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act 2014, it shall be seen, brings with it several changes,
the effect of which remain to be seen with time.
1 ‘NA unanimouslyadoptsservice tribunals(amendment) bill,2014’
2
‘NA passesthree Bills’
3 ‘Senate passes Service TribunalsBill 2014 withAmendment’
4 ‘Rare Support:Senate UnanimouslyPassesFive Bills’
5 ‘Senate passesService TribunalsBill 2014 withAmendment’

3. History
The Service Tribunals Act 1973 established the Federal Service Tribunal as a body that would
adjudicate in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants.6 The 1973
Act was passed in the light Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan that had also been re-
drafted in the same year, by the government under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Although this was a
breakthrough development that allowed for the Federal Service Tribunal to regulate the specific
issues and concerns of civil servants, its inception was not without political cause, and was
ladled with ulterior motives.
It is commonly acknowledged in Pakistan’s history that the reign of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s
government brought about the gradual decay of the civil service. The process was initiated by the
simple question posed: where did the power lie in Pakistan? The answer that Bhutto received
was; the army, the civil service, and the Presidency. It is then that he commenced his plan to
slowly deteriorate the civil service and the army, the former having suffered the most and
bearing such scars as can be seen even today.
The Constitution of 1973 was the first to include the provision of the election of the heads of
government bodies to be determined by the President himself, through criteria which he himself
would assess and deem fit. The very same political pressure that Quaid e Azam had warned
against seemed more likely than ever with the natural stipulation that party followers would be at
an unfair disadvantage in acquiring the prestigious posts. The 2014 Act
The Constitutional Provision Article 212 provides for the appointment of civil servants in the
service of Pakistan, as well as their conditions of service. It grants the appropriate Administrative
Tribunal or Court the jurisdiction to adjudicate in matters relating to disciplinary matters, tortious
acts and enemy property acquisition and disposal. The Article also expressly grants jurisdiction
to the Service Tribunals established therein, once their courts have been seized of a relevant
matter. The only adjudicating bodies that may be approached upon appeal of a case decided by
an Administrative Tribunal or Court or for an injunction order are the High Courts and the
Supreme Court. The Article also states that such an appeal may only be granted if the Supreme
Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and is of public importance.
6
The Service TribunalsAct, 1973

4. Addressees of the Act
The 1973 Act is addressed to all communities and services of Pakistan and is applicable to all
civil servants of Pakistan, wherever they may be. The Act defines a civil servant as a person who
is, or has been, a civil servant within the meaning of S 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 19737. The
section provides that a civil servant is a person who is a member of an All-Pakistan Service or a
civil service of the Federation, or one who holds a civil post dealing with the affairs of the
Federation, including defense, but does include a persons on deputation, on contract, paid from
contingencies, or a "worker" or "workman" as per the Factories Act 1934 or the Workman's
Compensation Act, 19238.
Significance of the Amendment
The 1973 Act was revered as an important feature of Pakistan’s legislature, but an amendment
was direly needed, as expressed in the order of the Supreme Court in Constitution Petition No. 3
of 2007, as the Supreme Court deemed the Service Tribunal has practically been dysfunctional
since September 2013.
Under the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2014 Amendment, it is stated that some
provisions of the 1973 Act are ultra vires to Pakistan’s Constitution as held by the Honourable
Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment dated 25.03.2013 in Constitution Petition
No.53/2007, otherwise known as Sheikh Riaz-ul-Haq v the Federation of Pakistan.
The outcome of this case was responsible for bringing about several desired and much needed
changes to the 1973 Act to curb inconsistencies and to address procedural setbacks that ensued
due to the ineffective practical application of its clauses. In the decision given by a bench of
former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sheikh
Azmat Saeed, several provisions of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 were declared
unconstitutional and void being in derogation of Article 2A and 9 read with Article 175 of the
Constitution.
7
S 2(a) of Service TribunalsAct,1973
8
S 2(b) of Civil ServantsAct,1973

5. Those provisions are S 3(1), S 3(3), S 3(3)(b), S 3(4) and S 3(7). Similarly, S 3(3)(b) of the
Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, S 3(3)(b) of the KPK Service Tribunals Act 19749 and S
3(3)(b) of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 197410 were also declared to be ultra vires to the
Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
In his petition, the Petitioner submitted that the Constitutional Obligations of the Respondents
should be fulfilled to ensure the separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive.
To do this, he submitted that amendment to the Service Tribunals Act should be made.
Among the issues discussed was the controversy regarding the appointment of the Chairman and
the members of the FST, which should be made with the consultation of the Chief Justice, and
not under the administrative and financial control of the Executive.
Furthermore, it was pled that the terms and conditions of the Chairman and members be
independent from Executive influence; legal and judicial experience should be evident and the
Chairman and members must be practicing lawyers or qualified as such.
It was then submitted that since the Service Tribunals Act 1973 does not provide for consultation
with the Chief Justice, the provision of Article 175 of the Constitution is not applicable in the
context of separation of Judiciary from Executive as the FST has been established to exercise
jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants.
The appointment of the Chairman of the FST is made by the acting President of Pakistan. This
remains the case even after the Amendment has been passed. It is however commendable that
9 S 3(3)(b) (repealed) of the KPK Act: A Tribunal shall consistof –
(b) not lessthantwoand not more than fourmemberseachof
whomisa personwhohasfor a periodof not lessthanfifteen
yearshelda Class-Ioran equivalentpost underthe Federal
Governmentora Provincial Government.
10
S 3(3)(b) (repealed) of the BalochistanAct:A Tribunal shall consistof –
(b) twomemberseachof whomis a personwhohas fora
periodof lessthantenyears heldaClassI post underthe
Federal Governmentora Provincial Government.

6. majority of the issues discussed in the case have been addressed and alterations have been made
to ensure that the functioning of the FST should in no way be unconstitutional.
Problems addressed by the Amendment
The Amendment certainly addresses some vital issues that civil servants face, in light of Sheikh
Riaz-ul-Haq v the Federation, and in particular issues regarding the jurisdiction of the FST, the
continued decline in the relevance of decisions made by the FST due to non-implementation of
decisions, new criterions for the appointment of chairmen and the controversy regarding the lack
of appointments of judges in their judicial panel. The power of the Tribunal to review and
execute its own decisions as well as its newly introduced financial powers shall also be discussed
below.
Jurisdiction
The 1973 Act provides that it is applicable to the whole of Pakistan, and therefore its jurisdiction
will spread across all of Pakistan. By virtue of S 311, the President may establish one or more
service tribunals. The jurisdiction and territorial limits are then specified by the President by
notification to the tribunal. Despite the proviso that the President ‘may’ establish ‘one or more’
tribunals, this clause has been reinstated and reaffirmed to the same effect by S 2(1)12 of the
Amendment. The reason for this seemingly repetitive clause is subtle yet precise. It aims to
address the issue of its literal implementation; there is in fact only one Service Tribunal in all of
Pakistan, situated in the Capital Territory of Islamabad. Needless to say, the lack of more
tribunals has doubtless created several hindrances in filing petitions and presenting cases to the
FST for those civil servants hailing from remote areas.
The Amendment pushes for the establishment of more service tribunals in every district to
alleviate this problem.
11
S 3 of Service TribunalsAct,1973
12
S 2(1) of Service Tribunals(Amendment) Act,2014

7. Relevance of FST decisions
The trend that has been witnessed over the span of the FST’s operation is a growth in the appeals
made to those higher level courts which the 1973 Act authorizes to entertain such claims, namely
the High Courts and Supreme Court. This is in fact mainly due to the non-implementation of the
decisions given by the FST due to the FST’s lack of implementing powers.
Once the FST passes a decision concerning a grievance of a civil servant, the applicant shall
have to approach the higher courts in order to attain a decree allowing him to carry forth with the
decision. This extra step in the procedure proved burdensome and costly, compromising time,
effort and expenses. The Amendment tackles this issue by introducing a new sub-section, which
gives the Service Tribunals the power to execute their own decisions, as enshrined in S 5(3)13.
Appointment of the Chairman
Previously under the 1973 Act, S 3(3)(a) provided that a Tribunal would consist of a Chairman
who is or has been qualified to be a Judge of a High Court14. Subsections (4)15, (5)16 and (6)17
then provided further clauses related to the Chairman.
S 3(4) of the 1973 Act provides that the Chairman and members of a Tribunal shall be appointed
by the President “on such terms and conditions as he may determine.” This has been amended by
the 2014 Act by substituting the above quote with specified terms:
(4) The Chairman and members of a Tribunal shall be appointed by the President for a non-
extendable term of three years18.
13
S 5(3) of Service Tribunals(Amendment) Act,2014
14
S 3(3)(a) of Service TribunalsAct,1973
15
S 3(4) of Service TribunalsAct,1973
16
S 3(5) of the 1973 Act provides:“The Chairmanof a memberof a Tribunal mayresignhisoffice by
writingunderhishandaddressedtothe President.”
17
S 3(6) of the 1973 Act provides:“The Chairmanora memberof a Tribunal shall notholdanyother
office of profitinthe service of Pakistanif hisremunerationistherebyincreased.”
18 S 3(4) of Service TribunalsAct,1973

8. A proviso is then added, that in the event that a serving District Judge or civil servant is
appointed, they shall hold office for three years or till the date of superannuation, whichever
should expire earlier.
S 3(3) of the 1973 Act has been substituted by S 2(2) of the Amendment, which provides that a
Chairman will be a person qualified as a Judge of a High Court19.
Subsection (7) of the Amendment substitutes subsection (7)20 of the 1973 Act, which stated that
an established Tribunal must consist of one or more persons in the service of Pakistan. The
amended section includes the important clause of absence, inability or vacancy of the Chairman
to perform his duties21, in which case the most senior member of the Tribunal shall act as
Chairman till the Chairman should resume his office or a regular Chairman is appointed. This
clarifies the potential chaos that ensues when the post of the Chairman is not filled or the
Chairman is not available to perform his duties. It also provides a precautionary back up plan by
singling out the next most competent person to temporarily assume the post.
Lastly, with the stipulated addition of S 5A(2) to the 1973 Act as discussed below, the Chairman
has the new prerogative of initiating and taking monetary decisions on behalf of the Tribunal
without needing to consult the Ministry of Finance.
Lack of Judges in FST
In the 1973 Act, the Chairman of a Tribunal was to be a person who is or has been qualified to be
a Judge of a High Court22. There was no mandatory requirement for the Chairman to in fact be a
Judge or to have any legal background whatsoever, so long as they were deemed similarly
19 S 2(2) of Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act,2014
20
S 3(7) of the 1973 Act provides:“Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinsub-section(3),sub-section
(4),sub-section(5) orsub-section(6),aTribunal establishedtoexercisejurisdictioninrespectof a
specifiedclassorclasses mayconsistof one or more personsinthe service of Pakistantobe appointed
by the President.”
21
S 3(7) of the 2014 Act provides:“Atanytime when-
(i) the Chairmanof a Tribunal isabsentoris unable toperformthe
functionsof hisoffice due toany cause;or
(ii) office of the Chairmanisvacant,
The most seniorof the othermembersof a Tribunal shall actas Chairmantill the Chairmanresumeshis
office orthe regularChairmanisappointed,asthe case may be.”
22 S 3(3)(a) of Service Tribunals Act,1973

9. qualified. The lack of a mandatory proviso in this respect resulted in the Chairmen not being
fully equipped with the necessary command of legislating and resulted in potentially extraneous
decisions not in par with the legal trends observed in the courts. Aggrieved and dissatisfied
applicants would then have to approach the High Court or Supreme Court to have the decision
reviewed, and possibly revoked, if it was deemed unsatisfactory. Here, again, was a situation
where time, efforts, resources, and travelling expenditure were frivolously exhausted.
Apart from the extra efforts experienced by the applicant, the Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the 2014 Amendment also rightly addresses the excessive burden the High Courts have to
endure due to the influx of FST cases which they must address23. This is due to the fact that the
FST does not have the power to have its orders and judgments implemented.
To rectify both these issues, S 3(3) of the 1973 Act has been substituted by S 2(2) of the 2014
Act, which not only provides that a Chairman will be a person qualified as a Judge of a High
Court, but it further requires that the members be qualified at the level of a District Judge24, or a
person holding a post in BS-21 (or above, or equivalent) under the Federal Government for not
less than two years, with adequate administrative experience and background of dealing with
service matters. The new subsection places the minimum number of members of an FST as not
less than three.
Thus the Amendment adequately addressed the issue of members of service tribunals not being
Judges. This alleviates the reoccurrence of dissatisfactory judgments to an extent, and releases
the pressure off the shoulders of retired civil servants who have normally filled the seats as
members of the Tribunal.
Power to Review
The 2014 Amendment is accredited with the inclusion of a tremendously useful reform, that
being the power of the FST to review its own previous decisions. This results in more power
granted to the FST as a tribunal and adjudicating body in its own right, and grants it
23 Statementof Objects&Reasons,Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act,2014
24 S 2(2) of Service Tribunals(Amendment) Act,2014

10. independence from relying on Higher Courts to rectify or amend its past decisions through a
rigorous court procedure. The advantages of reviewing their own decrees extend to the civil
servants as well, who as applicants will enjoy a faster review system in a tribunal which tends to
only matters pertinent to civil servants, as opposed to High Courts which already experience
backlog in handling a variety of cases.
S 3 of the Amendment25 inserts a new S 4A to the 1973 Act, which provides the Tribunals
powers of review. Under the new S 4A(1), Tribunals will have the power to review its final order
within thirty days of a petition filed by an aggrieved party, on the grounds of discovering new
important factors which were not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of the order26,
and erroneous or mistaken facts in record27.
The Amendment further provides that the reviewed decision must be passed within thirty days28,
and that the Tribunal has the power to modify, vary, set aside or confirm the order or judgment
under review as it deems suitable29.
Power to Execute its Decisions
As is the case with the Tribunal’s new power to review its decisions, the FST may now also
execute its decisions by virtue of the new prerogative granted to it by S 4 of the Amendment30.
S4 provides to the addition of subsection 5(3) into the 1973 Act.
This amendment is equally important as it brings with it a sigh of relief for both the FST and
applicants alike. Previously before the 2014 Act came into force, under the 1973 Act the FST did
not have any jurisdiction to execute its decisions. This resulted in a decree whose worth and
value extended only as far as the paper it was printed on. Applicants would need to have the
decision enforced and executed by a Higher Court regardless of the permission already granted
to them by the FST.
25 S 3 of Service Tribunals(Amendment)Act2014
26 S 4A(1)(ii) of Service TribunalsAct1973 (as amendedbythe Service Tribunals(Amendment) Act2014).
27 Ibid., S4A(1)(iii)
28 Ibid., S4(2)
29 Ibid.,S 4(3)
30 S 4 of Service Tribunals(Amendment)Act,2014

11. Due to the minimal significance of a decision of the FST, it was not uncommon for civil servants
to resort to seeking remedy and assistance from the District or Higher Courts in an effort to have
their issues rectified. They would rather prefer to skip the hassle of double adjudication by first
being serviced by the FST to no avail, and then being left with no choice but to approach the
bench of an alternate legislating authority.
With the inclusion of this new power, it is hoped that the deliverance and implementation of the
FST’s judgments would ensue and that confidence gradually increase in the competence of the
Tribunal.
Financial Independence
One of the salient highlights of the Amendment was aimed at empowering Federal Service
Tribunals by making them an effective judicial forum, financially autonomous and laying down
express criterion for appointments.31 S 5 of the 2014 Act32 provides for the insertion of S 5A in
the 1973 Act33 which would grant FST its financial powers.
The judiciary of Pakistan has its own budget, rendering the High Court and Supreme Court as
autonomous, as opposed to the FST which receives its funds from the Ministry of Finance. The
newfound financial independence will increase the FST’s value as a government agency as well
as grant it the autonomy it deserves.
The new S 5A provides that the Registrar of the Tribunal shall be the Principal Accounting
Officer of a Tribunal. Along with this addition, the Chairman34 has been granted the power to
authorize re-appropriation of funds from one head of account to another, and sanction any
expenditure without referring to or needing an approval from the Ministry of Finance.
31
‘NA passesthree Bills’
http://www.fafen.org/site/v6/press-
releases/na_passes_three_bills,_begins_debate_on_federal_budget_2014-15_2014_06_06_1851
32 S 5 of Service Tribunals(Amendment)Act,2014
33 S 5A of the Service TribunalsAct,1973 (asamendedbythe Service Tribunals(Amendment) Act2014).
34 Ibid.,S5A(2)

12. It is hoped that through the new amendments, the FST would allot and spend its budget
independent of external interference from other government bodies, and enjoy complete financial
independence.
Suggestedreforms
As the new Act has only recently come into effect, it remains too early to comment on the
possible successes or failures of the implementation phase of the new amendments. Nevertheless,
a singular alteration to the already successfully amended 2014 Act does come to mind.
Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff in one of his pre-election campaigns addressed the issue of the
appointments of Chairmen and other influential posts as an area on which he planned to bring
change. He suggested that rather than the President appointing them by his sole selection,
advertisements of the job offer would be posted in such leading journals and newspapers and the
Economist, which would even reach the notice of international applicants abroad. In this way,
the selection process would be ‘democratic’ and the position would be awarded to one of the
applicants.
The above changes were never brought about even after the elections went in the Prime
Minister’s favor. Although the Amendment does require the appointments to be conducted by the
Chief Justice of Pakistan, it is recommended that such a course of action as suggested by the
Prime Minister would be the least autocratic and the fairest criteria for selection. It would
certainly guarantee that the post be filled by one who is properly equipped and qualified to carry
out the duties and responsibilities it carries.

13. Bibliography
Primary Sources
Legislation
1. The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
2. The Services Tribunals Act, 1973
3. The Services Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1973
4. The Civil Servants Act, 1973
5. The Factories Act, 1934
6. The Workman's Compensation Act, 1923
7. KPK Service Tribunals Act, 1974
8. Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1974
Cases
1. Constitution Petition No. 53 of 2007
Secondary Sources
Online Articles
1. ‘Rare Support: Senate Unanimously Passes Five Bills’
http://tribune.com.pk/story/717694/rare-support-senate-unanimously-passes-five-bills/
2. ‘NA unanimously adopts service tribunals (amendment) bill, 2014’
http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/108-pakistan-top-news/176830-na-unanimously-adopts-
service-tribunals-(amendment)-bill-2014.html
3. ‘NA passes three Bills’
http://www.fafen.org/site/v6/press-
releases/na_passes_three_bills,_begins_debate_on_federal_budget_2014-
15_2014_06_06_1851
4. ‘Senate passes Service Tribunals Bill 2014 with Amendment’
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Senate+passes+Service+Tribunals+Bill+2014+with+amen
dment.-a0370303964