FC employees can approach FST: SC

The Supreme Court has held that Frontier Constabulary (FC) employees are civil servants, and they can approach the Federal Services Tribunal (FST) in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service.

"Mindful of such a situation, the high court in its writ jurisdiction may exercise its discretionary powers to avoid grave injustice and in order to get out of the rigors of technicalities remit the case to the Service Tribunal in a prima facie case, provided all requisite formalities, including the filing of the departmental appeal, were complied with according to law and rules," stated the nine-page written order authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar while hearing an appeal of an FC employee against the FST order.

A three-judge bench of the apex court led by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood has noted that in the present circumstances, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) rightly remitted the matter to the tribunal to advance the cause of justice being mindful of the doctrine of ex debito justitiae (by reason of an obligation of justice: as a matter of right).

"However, we are sanguine that such discretionary powers may only be exercised in exceptional cases where exigency so demands in the interest of justice, rather than adopting it as a routine or everyday practice to extend an advantage or recourse to civil servants to approach the high court despite the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution," the order added.

The court noted that it is the foremost duty of the court and tribunal to do complete justice.

"A patent and obvious error or oversight on the part of court in any order or decision may be reviewed sanguine to the renowned legal maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which is a well-settled enunciation and articulation of law expressing that no man should suffer because of the fault of the court or an act of the court shall prejudice no one and this principle also denotes the extensive pathway for the safe administration of justice,” it stated.

"It is interrelated and intertwined with the state of affairs where the court is under an obligation to reverse the wrong done to a party by the act of court which is an elementary doctrine and tenet to the system of administration of justice beyond doubt that no person should suffer because of a delay in procedure or the fault of the court,” it added.

The court stated that this is a de rigueur sense of duty in the administration of justice that the court and tribunal should become conscious and cognisant that as a consequence of their mistake, nobody should become a victim of injustice.

It added that in the event of any injustice or harm suffered by mistake of the court, it should be remedied by making the necessary correction forthwith.

" If the court is satisfied that it has committed a mistake, then such person should be restored to the position which he would have acquired if the mistake did not happen. This expression is established on the astuteness and clear-sightedness that a wrong order should not be perpetuated by preserving it full of life or stand in the way under the guiding principle of justice and good conscience,” it stated.

"So, in all fairness, it is an inescapable and inevitable duty that if any such patent error on the face of it committed as in this case, the same must be undone without shifting blame to the parties and without further ado, being solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake,” it added.

The order noted that the tribunal shall decide the appeal in accordance with law and applicable rules after notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties.