tsuPBMt COURT 0LPAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR AU AKBAR NAQV1
Civil A eats to 17-K of 2019
Against judgment dated 28.(n -2018 of Sindh Service
Tribunal at Karachi, passed in Appeals No.1015, 1063,
1156 to 1159, 1161 81 1164 o12015.
Sindh Irrigation & Drainage Authority, 
Appellant(s)
Versus
Government of Sindh & others 
Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s): 
Malik Naeem Iqbal, ASC
Sh. Khurratfl Aziz, Secy, SIDA
Altaf Hussain, Law Officer ,(V1 0 V•L.
For the Respondent(s):
Date of Hearing:
Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara, ASC
Mr. Mansoor ul Haq Solangi, ASC
Muhammad Ali Zardari, AWB, Ghotki
Mr. Sibtain MehmoOd, Addl.AG, Sindh
Sikandar Hassan, DS Irrigation Sindh
Khaditn Hussain, DS Irrigation Sindh
Abdul Hafeez Memon, SO Irrigation Sindh
(alt UtD. V.1.
24.03.202 1
JUD.
GMENT
IjAz UL AHSAN, j-. Through this single
judgment we intend to decide Civil Appeal Nos. 10-K to 17-K
of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "CA") as they involve a
common question of law.
2. By way of the instant appeals,the Appellants have
challenged the consolidated judgment of the Sindh Service
Tribunal, Karachi dated 2808-2018 passed in Service Appeal
Nos. 1015 of 2015, 1063 of 2015, 1156 to 1159 of 2015, 1161
of 2015 and 1164 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the
ChitI Appeals No.10-K to Il-K at 2019 
2
"Impugned Judgment"). Through their Service Appeals, the
Appellants had filed an application under Section 12(2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
"CPC")contending that the litigation Respondents were
engaged in before the Service Tribunal claiming to be
employees of the Irrigation Department of the Government of
Sindh was fraudulent and erroneous since they were not Civil
servants but Public servants and employees of the Sindh
Irrigation and Drainage Authority (hereinafter referred to as
"SIDA"). The Service Tribunal dismissed the application of the
Appellants vide the Impugned Judgment. Aggrieved, the
Appellants have approached this Court.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this Us are that the
Respondents were employed against different posts in the
Tube Well Division(s) of SIDA by the Executive Engineer(s).
The Respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court
for release of their salaries. The said Writ Petition was
remitted to the Service Tribunal. The Service Appeal of the
Respondents was disposed of vide orders dated 14.05.2015
with directions to the Department to process the case of the
Respondents' salaries in view of different letters issued by the
Finance Department. The directions of the Service Tribunal
were allegedly not complied with, prompting the Respondents
to file execution applications. During pendency of the
execution proceedings, the Appellants filed an application
under Section 12(2) of the CPC before the Service Tribunal for
setting aside the order dated 14.05.20 15 claiming therein
(Api! Appeals NO, 20-K to 17-K of 2019 
3
that the Service Tribunal did lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate
the matter since the Respondents were public servants and
not civil servants. The application of the Appellants was
dismissed vide the Impugned Judgment. Aggrieved thereof,
the Appellants filed Civil Petitions for leave to appeal before
this Court against the Impugned Judgment.
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide
order dated 03.04.2019 in the following terms: -
"Mr. Malik Naeem Iqbal learned Sr. ASC for the petitioner
submits that the impugned judgment has been rendered by
the Sindh Service Tribunal under a grave misconception that
the private respondents herein were civil servants employed
by the Government of Sindh. Such was held for the purported
reason that the appointments of the respondents were made
by the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department.
Learned Counsel submits that indeed, it is true that the
appointments were made by the Executive Engineer however
at the relevant time the said Engineers were not working for
the Irrigation Department but were discharging their duties
for the Water Management Board on deputation. Learned
counsel refers to Section 29 of the Sindh Water Management
Ordinance, 2002, to show the Water Management Board is a
corporate body independent of the Government of Sindh and
in order to show the functions prescribed for the Board the
learned Counsel refers to Section 32 and also to Section 16 of
the Ordinance which provide that in order to carry out the
Purpose of the Ordinance, SIDA may from time to time,
employ officers, staff and experts etc with such qualification
and expertise, and on such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed by S1DA. The learned Counsel further submits
that in terms of Section 39 certain provisions of SIDA,
including Section 16 are to apply mutatis mutandis to the
Board as well. He submits that the tern-is and conditions of
the persons employed or sought to be employed were/ are, in
terms of Section 16, to be determined by SIDA, its employees
cannot be termed as Civil servants for which it is essentially
required that their terms and conditions be settled through
the relevant statute."
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the
Appellants have been elaborately spelt out in the leave
granting order of this Court noted above and need not be
repeated.
Oiml A ppeals Pin. ?Q-J( to 17-K 0, i01 9 
4
6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has
supported the Impugned Judgment. He has argued that the
Service Tribunal rightly non-suited the Appellants since
Respondents were Civil servants and were employed by the
Irrigation Department of the Government of Sindh. He has
further argued that the Respondents were employed by the
Executive Engineer who was an official of the Government of
Sindh, hence, the Respondents for all intents and purposes
were Civil servants. In this respect, the learned Counsel for
the Respondents has relied upon the appointment letters of
the Respondents.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned
Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The
questions which fall before this Court for determination are
as follows: -
(i)
Were the Respondents "Public servants" or "Civil
servants" and, the consequences thereof?
(ii)
What was the legal significance of the appointments
made by the then Executive Engineer(s)?
(iii)
Did the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to
entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the
CPC?
WERE THE RESPONDENTS "PUBLIC SERVANTS" OR
"CIVIL SERVANTS" AND, THE CONSEQUENCES
THEREOF?
8. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued
that, since the Respondents were employees of SIDA, they
were deemed to be public servants and not as civil servants
because they were employees of an authority, which was a
body corporate. In this respect, he has relied upon Section
4( 1)(a) of the Sindh Water Management Ordinance,
Civil Appeals go.] U-A to if-A 012UIY 
5
2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance, 2002"). As such,
he has argued that the Government of Sindh, Irrigation
Department was a separate entity from the Appellant-
Authority. We have before us Section 4(l)(a) of the Ordinance,
2002which reads as under: -
"1) The SIDA
a. Shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession
and a common seal and shall by the same name, sue
and be sued"
The term "Authority" is defined in Section 3
Ordinance, 2002 which reads as follows: -
"As soon as may be, after the commencement of this
Ordinance, there shall be established an Authority known as
the SIDA, provided that the SIDA existing immediately before
the commencement of this Ordinance shall continue to
function until the SIDA reconstituted under this
Ordinance. "(Underlining is ours)
A bare perusal of the alorenoted provisions of the
Ordinance, 2002 makes is clear that the SIDA is a separate
legal entity which, as per the provisions of the Ordinance,
2002, is different from the Irrigation Department of the
Government of Sindh. The Sindh Irrigation Department on
the other hand is a department of the Government of Sindh,
which is governed by a separate legal regime. The fact that
the legislature has in its wisdom sought to incorporate SIDA
as a body corporate Authority in the Ordinance, 2002 shows
its clear intention of not merely making it a department of the
Government of Sindh. A Department of the Government
generally operates under the control of the Government. This
essentially means that the autonomy of a department is
limited insofar as its operations and management are
concerned. An Authority on the other hand is generally
Ov,( Appeals No.JU-K to il-K 012W 9 
6
autonomous. It can regulate its internal affairs and formulate
policies after seeking approval from the governing body of the
Authority in question. This is evidenced by the fact that there
is a separate Board of Management of SIDA provided inter a/ia
in Section 12(1) of the Ordinance, 2002 which reads as
follows: -
"1) Subject to the overall control and guidance of the SIDA,
the affairs of the SIDA shall be managed by the Board of
Management consisting of the Managing Director and such
number of General Managers, as may be appointed by the
SIDA on the advice of a committee comprising of four
members of the SIDA, provided that at least one of them shall
be an elected member.
The aforenoted provision makes it clear that SIDA
is an autonomous body, which operates as an Authority,
managed by a Board of Management. The use of the word
"shall" in Section 12(1) makes it evident that SIDA is to
govern its own affairs as an autonomous body.
9. The learned Service Tribunal has conceded that,
as per Section 106 of the Ordinance, 2002, the Respondents
are public servants. It has further been held that since the
appointment orders of the Respondents were issued by the
Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department; as such, it
cannot be said that the Respondents were not Civil servants
since the appointment orders of the Respondents were issued
by a representative of the Irrigation Department. We are
unable to agree with the findings of the learned Service
Tribunal. Section 106 of the Ordinance, 2002 specifically
provides that employees of SIDA shall be public servants
which reads as follows: -
"The Chairman, Members of the Board, Officers and
employees of the Regulating Authority, SIDA, AWB, Pt? and
Quit A ppeals N0.10-K to 27-K ot 2019 
7
other bodies constituted under this Ordinance shall, when
acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the
provisions of this Ordinance, be deemed to be public servants
within the meaning of Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal
Code."
The aforenoted provision of the Ordinance, 2009
clearly establishes that the Respondents shall be public
servants for a limited purpose spelt out in Section 106 itself.
The fact that this has been mentioned categorically within the
Ordinance, 2009 itself leaves no room for the Service Tribunal
to read into the Ordinance, 2009 something which is not
provided therein. Such an interpretation is ultra vires not only
to the Ordinance but also, the powers of the Tribunal. A civil
servant is someone who has been employed by the competent
authority i.e., either the Provincial or Federal Public Service
Commission, in the prescribed manner after following due
process of law and having gone through the process of
competition. Reliance in this regard is placed on Muhammad
Mubeen us Salam and others i.,. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 2006 Supreme Court 602) the relevant portion of
which reads as under: -
"In the above definition of the civil servant, the expression
'All Pakistan Service or of a civil service of Federation" has
been included, therefore, section 5 of CSA, 1973 defines the
competent authority for appointment. According to which
Appointments to an All-Pakistan Service or to a civil service of
the Federation or to a civil post in connection with the affairs
of the Federation, including any civil post connected with
defence, shall be made in the prescribed manner by the
President or by a person authorized by the President in that
behalf" To meet the requirements of this provision of law,
Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 was
promulgated in pursuance whereof the Commission was
authorized to conduct tests and examinations for recruitment
of persons other than officers of the Armed Forces of
Pakistan, etc."
There is nothing on the record to suggest that the
Respondents were ever declared civil servants by the
Giant A ppeals No. lu-K to li-ft ot 4019 
8
competent authority or, that they were appointed by the
Public Service Commission of Sindh. Rather, it has been
alleged that they were appointed by the Executive Engineer,
therefore, they were civil servants. We are unable to agree
with this conclusion or the reasons given by the Tribunal for
such a conclusion, for reasons discussed above.
10. The relevant definition of a Civil servant for the
purposes of this controversy is provided in the Sindh Civil
servants Act, 1973, Section 2(1)(b) of which reads as follows: -
""civil servant" means a person who is a member of a civil
service of the Province or holds a civil post in connection with
the affairs of the Province, but does not include -
(I) a person who is on deputation to the Province from
the Federation or any other Province or authority;
or
(H) a person who is employed on contract, or on work
charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies;
or
(iii) a person who is "worker" or "workman" as
defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934),
or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of
1923)"
The aforenoted provision defines a civil servant. It
is clear from the record placed before us that the
Respondents do not fall within the aforenoted definition. They
were not employed by the Provincial or Federal Public Service
Commission neither is there any notification or any other
document on the record that confers on them the status of 
I
civil servants. A public servant may be a person who is
employed in the public sector. However, not all public
servants are civil servants unless they are appointed in the
prescribed manner discussed above.
Civil A ppeals No.20-K to 17-K of 2029 
9
WHAT WAS THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE THEN EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER(S)?
11. The learned ASC for the Appellant-Authority has
argued that the Executive Engineer(s) at the time in question
was not working for the Irrigation department. Rather, he was
working for SIDA on deputation. It has further been argued
that the Executive Engineer did not have authority to employ
the Respondents under the provisions of the Ordinance,
2002.In support of his arguments, the learned ASC for the
Appellant-Authority has drawn our attention to the
notifications dated 14.09,2012, 30.05.2012 and 29.07.2011
wherein it has been mentioned that various Executive
Engineers were transferred and posted as Executive
Engineers on OPS basis to the Tube Well Division(s) where
the Respondents were employed. It is to be noted that the
Tube Well Division(s) fell under the jurisdiction of the Area
Water Board, Gothki, the control of which stood transferred
from the Government of Sindh to the SIDA. In this respect we
have on record a notification dated 28.11.2001 which reads
as follows: -
"1. The Government of Sindh is pleased to designate under
Section 23(1) of the Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority
Act, (IV of 1997), the entire Gothki Feeder Canal Circle and
Left Bank Canal Circle from Head to Tail as Gothki Feeder
Canal Area Water Board and Left Bank Area Water Board.
2. All the Canals, Drains, Public Tube Wells, Appurtenant
structures, assets and liabilities falling within the jurisdiction
of both canals command stand transferred to Gothki Feeder
Canal Area Water Board and Left Bank Canal Area Water
Board.
3. The Gothki Feeder Canal and Left Bank Canal Area Water
Boards shall be governed by the Rules and Regulations
framed by the Authority.'
Civil Aooeals No. 10-K to 17-K of 2019 
10
12. All appointments made in SIDA were supposed to
be made pursuant to Section 16 of the Ordinance, 2002. It
has been argued that in terms of Section 39 of the Ordinance,
2002, certain provisions inter alia, Section 16 of the
Ordinance, 2002 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Area
Water Board. Section 39 of the Ordinance, 2002 reads as
follows: -
"The provisions of sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24 and 27 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to an AWB"
The aforenoted provision of the Ordinance, 2002
clearly mentions that Section 16 of the Ordinance, 2002 shall
apply mutatis mutandis, i.e., without any substantial
changes, to the Area Water Board. Section 16 of the
Ordinance, 2002 reads as follows:
"16. Staff 1) In order to carry out the purpose of this
Ordinance, the SIDA mazi, from time to time, employ officers,
staff experts, advisers and other employees with such
qualifications and expertise and on such terms and
conditions as mat,' be prescribed bu SIDA.
2k). The Staff transferred from the Irrigation and Power
Department to SIDA shall serve on such terms and conditions
as prescribed by SIDA; provided that such terms and
conditions shall not be less favourable than the terms and
conditions admissible to them immediately before their
transfer to SIDA.
3). The staff transferred from the Irrigation and Power
Department shall continue to be governed by the provisions
of the Civil Service Pension Scheme, unless they opt not to be
so.
4)
The Managing Director shall be responsible for the
personnel management for all the SIDA staff in accordance
with regulations framed by the SIDA.
5) In cases of dismissal, promotion, demotion, removal,
termination, punishment(s) and all other matters connected
with the terms and conditions of service, staff in the SIDA
shall have a right of appeal, in accordance with the
regulations framed by the SIDA. (Underlining is ours)
GM Appea(s 90. 1 U-A toil-A OT 2W 
11
A bare perusal of the aforenoted provision makes
it abundantly clear that the powers to inter alia appoint the
staff of SIDA vested with the Board of Management of SIDA
since the Board has powers as per Section 12(1) of the
Ordinance, 2002 to administer all matters of SIDA including
employment of its staff. Section 12(1) read with Section 16
clearly indicates that any and all appointments shall be made
by the Board of Management of SIDA. As such, no other
authority/ person could have exercised such powers without
express authorization given by the Board. As such, any and
all powers exercised by the Executive Engineer could only
have been exercised if the same were delegated by the Board
of Management of SIDA under Section 12(4) which reads as
under: -
"4) The Board of Management of may, by general or special
order, delegate to the Managing Director or any other member
of the Board, or to any officer of the SIDA, any of its powers
under this Ordinance, subject to such conditions or
limitations as it may impose."
There is nothing on the record to suggest that
such powers were ever delegated to the Executive Engineer(s)
in question. Even if it is assumed that the Executive Engineer
had the authority to appoint staff, the said appointments
could not have been made in contravention of Section 16 of
the Ordinance, 2002 or, any other provision of the Ordinance,
2002. It is settled law that legislation must be given a
harmonious reading where possible. As such, all those
lawfully employed under Section 16 of the Ordinance, 2002
would be public servants (for limited purposes) when Section
16 is read with Section 106 of the Ordinance, 2002, noted
crv,t Appeals No. 10-K to 17-K of 2019 
12
above. Hence, the appointments made the Executive
Engineer(s) (if legal) could have only conferred the status of
public servants onto the Respondents and under no
circumstances, that of Civil Servants.
13. A similar provision within the Ordinance, 2002
with regards to the Area Water Board is Section 34 which
reads as under: -
"34. Board of Management. 1) Subject to the overall control
and guidance of the A WE Board of an A wg the affairs of
that AWE shall be managed by a Board of Management
formed by the Director and as many Managers as that A WE
may reasonably require for the purpose.
2) Sub-section 2) to 4) of Sub-section 12 shrill mutatis
mutandis apply to the Board."
Section 34 of the Ordinance, 2002 read with the
notification dated 28.11.2001 clearly establishes that in any
case, it was either the Board of Management of the Area
Water Board or, the SIDA, which was to employ the
Respondents and not the Executive Engineer. The
Respondents have been unable to show us anything from the
record to the effect that the Executive Engineer(s) had been
delegated with the authority to appoint any staff in the Tube
Well Division(s) under the control of the Area Water Board as
per Section 32 of the Ordinance, 2002. Even in the best case
scenario, the Executive Engineer could only be empowered to
employ the Respondents as public servants within the
meaning of Section 106 and not as Civil Servants. It is settled
law that an official can only exercise as much power as is
granted to them by law. The Executive Engineer could not
have gone beyond the powers he had or acted in violation of
Gun! A ppeals No. 10-K to 1/-K of 2019 
13
the provisions of the Ordinance, 2002. Public functionaries
owe a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and discharge their
duties with honesty and in accordance with law. If a public
functionary does not exercise such power in good faith and
with honesty, the principle of merit gets compromised which
damages the superstructure of merit, competence and good
governance. There is no advertisement on the record to show
that the posts in question were available to the general public
and that the Respondents were appointed after having gone
through open competition. This raises doubts over the entire
appointment and recruitment process carried out by the
Executive Engineer(s). There is nothing on the record to show
that the recruitment process was carried out in accordance
with the provisions of the Ordinance, 2002. As such, the
findings of the learned Service Tribunal that the Respondents
were employees of the Irrigation Department are clearly
against the record which has totally been misread and
misinterpreted. The Respondents were employees of SIDA and
not the Irrigation Department because they were appointed by
Executive Engineer(s) serving on deputation in SIDA. The
learned Service Tribunal's findings in this regard are
unsustainable in law and in fact.
DID THE SERVICE TRIBUNAL HAVE JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12(21 OF
THE CPC?
14. 
After obtaining an order from the High Court for
release of their salaries, the Respondents approached the
Service Tribunal for implementation of the same, claiming to
be civil servants. They filed their respective implementation
Ciufi A ppeals No. 10-K to 17-K of2019 
14
applications/ petitions. As a response to the same, the
Counsel for the Appellant-Authority filed an application under
Section 12(2) of the CPC averring therein that the
Respondents misrepresented the fact that they were
employees of the Irrigation Department and claimed to be
Civil Servants whereas, they were in fact Public Servants and
governed by the principle of Master and Servant. The learned
Service Tribunal dismissed the application of the Appellant-
Authority as not maintainable vide the Impugned Judgment,
holding that the Service Tribunal did not have powers to
decide an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC. We are
unable to agree with this finding of the learned Service
Tribunal. Section 5 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973
categorically provides that the Service Tribunal shall have all
powers available to a Civil Court. Section 5 of the Sindh
Service Tribunals Act, 1973 reads as under: -
"5. Powers of Tribunals.-(1) A Tribunal may, on appeal,
confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed
against. (2)A Tribunal shall, for the purpose of decidin g any
appeal be deemed to be a Civil Court shall have the same
powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), including the powers of- (a)
enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him
on oath, (b) compelling the production of documents; (c)
issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and
documents; and (d) execution of its decisions. (3) No court-fee
shall be payable for preferring an appeal to, or filling,
exhibiting or recording any documents in, or obtaining any
document from, a Tribunal." (underlining is ours)
15. The aforenoted provision makes it clear that the
Service Tribunal has all the powers which are available to the
Civil Court. This is further evidenced by the fact that the word
"including" is in Section 5(2) which shows that the Tribunal's
powers are broad and have not been limited by the Act. It has
the same powers as available to a Civil Court. Deciding an
CiuüArn,eals No. 10-K to 17-Ko12019 
15
application under Section 12(2) is a power vested with the
Civil Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rahat
Naseem Malik v. President of Pakistan and others (2003
PLC (CS) 759 which held as under: -
"Now turning towards the next contention of the learned
counsel namely that Federal Service Tribunal under section 5
of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 exercises jurisdiction of a
Civil court, therefore, it was its duty to have thoroughly
examined the case of the petitioner. As far as the powers of
the Tribunal to confirm, set aside, vary or modify an order
operating against petitioner as well as to exercise powers of
a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is
concerned there is no cavil with it. However, such power
would be exercised by the Tribunal judiciously keeping in
view the recognized principle of law."
16. As such, the learned Tribunal could not have held
that the application of the Appellant-Authority was not
maintainable in law. When the law categorically provides the
Service Tribunal with powers to adjudicate a matter, it cannot
restrict itself from doing what it is required by law to do. The
Service Tribunal was required to decide the application under
Section 12(2) of the Appellant-Interveners on merits, based on
the material before it. This is so because the Appellant-
Authority alleged that the Respondents misrepresented
themselves as Civil Servants and tried to get relief from the
Service Tribunal, which, according to Article 212 of the
Constitution is empowered to deal with matters pertaining
only to persons employed in the Service of Pakistan. It is
settled law that fraud vitiates the most solemn of proceedings.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Sued
Mehmood All Shah v. Zulfigar All and 5 others (PLD 2013
Supreme Court 364). In presence of a plea of
misrepresentation and fraud, the learned Service Tribunal
could not have summarily dismissed the application of the
Ovtl Appeals ho. 10-K to 1/-K of 2019 
16
Appellant-Authority as being not maintainable and, was duty
bound to examine the same on the basis of the record. The
findings of the learned Tribunal in this respect are held to be
unsustainable in law and in fact.
17.
The fact that there was a clear term in the
appointment order(s) of the Respondents stating that their
post was purely temporary and that their services could be
terminated simpliciter also means that the Respondents were
governed by the principle of "Master and Servant". As such,
the learned Tribunal could not have interfered in this matter
especially when it has been established from the record that
the Respondents were not Civil Servants.
18.
The learned counsel has agued that the
superstructure of the execution is built upon a void order.
The learned Service Tribunal has dismissed this argument
and has held that the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal did
not suffer from any inherent defects. We are unable to agree
with this conclusion. Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals
Act, 1973 clearly provides that, for an appeal to be competent
before the Service Tribunal, the appellant must be a civil
servant. Section 4 of the ibid Act reads as under: -
"Appeals to Tribunals.-Any civil servant aggrieved by any
final order, whether original or appellate, made by a
departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and
conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the
communication of such order to him or within twelve months
of the establishment of a tribunal whichever is latter prefer
an appeal to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.
(Underlining is ours)
A bare reading of the aforenoted provision makes
it abundantly clear that the appeal of the Respondents before
cw,l A ppeals No.] U-K to U--t( 0(2019 
17
the Service Tribunal was incompetent. As such, the Execution
proceedings which were pursued to implement the order
passed in the Appeal in question were also incompetent
because the Respondents were not Civil Servants. Contrarily,
anyone aggrieved of an order of SIDA or, the Area Water
Board is required as per the Ordinance, 2002 to appeal to the
Regulatory Authority defined in Section 2(m) of the
Ordinance, 2002 as the Regulatory Authority of Irrigation,
Drainage and Flood Protection established under the
Ordinance, 2002. The relevant section under which an appeal
may be filed is Section 82 which reads as under: -
"An appeal against the order of the SIDA, an AWE of a PD
shall lie to the Regulatory Authority within such period and
in such manner as may be prescribed by Regulations framed
by the Regulatory Authority"
There is nothing on the record which shows that
the Respondents approached the said Regulatory Authority or
complained before the said Regulatory Authority. Even
otherwise, in absence of a final order, their appeals were
incompetent before the Service Tribunal in view of Section 4
of the Act of 1973. It is specifically provided in Section 83 of
the Ordinance, 2002 that the Regulatory Authority is
empowered to establish Tribunals for the resolution of
contractual disputes between SIDA's staff and SIDA. There is
nothing on the record to show that the said Regulatory
Authority was ever approached by the Respondents. Rather,
the Respondents filed a Service Appeal being Public Servants,
which was incompetent and therefore not maintainable.
Section 83 of the Ordinance, 2002 reads as under:
Civü A ppeals N0.10.Kto 17-K of 2019 
18
"83. Tribunals.. 1) The Regulatory Authority, from amongst
its professional staff may establish Tribunals for resolving
contractual disputes between the authorities and institutions
managing the irrigation and drainage network as listed in
this Chapter or such other matters as the Regulatory
Authority may assign 2) The Regulatory Authority shall
frame regulations for the operation of such Tribunals."
19.
The learned Service Tribunal has proceeded on the
incorrect interpretation of the law and has applied the
incorrect principles of the law to the facts and circumstances
of the case warranting interference of this Court. The reasons
recorded and the conclusions drawn are patently erroneous,
incorrect and give a mistaken interpretation of law. As such,
the Impugned Judgment is unsustainable.
20.
In view of the above, these appeals are allowed.
The Impugned Judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal at
Karachi dated 28.08.2018 passed in Service Appeal Nos. 1015
of 2015, 1063 of 2015, 1156 to 1159 of 2015, 1161 of 2015
and 1164 of 2015 is set aside.
ISLAMABAD, THE
24th of March 2021
Hans Ishtiaq Lc/'
Approved For Reporting