livelawpk.com - The Civil Servants who did not opted to absorb into DRAP ---

The Civil Servants who did not opted to absorb into DRAP could not reverse their decisions after several years --- Islamabad High Court, Islamabad

2 months, 4 weeks
127

The Civil Servants who did not opted to absorb into DRAP could not reverse their decisions after several years --- Islamabad High Court, Islamabad

Islamabad 24-09-2024: In a significant judgment, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) dismissed three connected petitions challenging the composition, promotions, and internal governance of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP). The petitions were filed by DRAP employees who alleged that the authority had violated the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 (DRAP Act) by failing to frame statutory rules for promotions and service conditions, and instead, relying on the 2015 service regulations.

Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, in his judgment, ruled that the 2015 DRAP Employees Service Regulations were valid and that the petitioners were estopped from challenging their absorption and promotion options after four and a half years of inaction.

The Court held that civil servants who opted to remain under the federal government’s service structure, rather than being absorbed into DRAP, could not reverse their decisions after several years. The Court found that the petitioners had voluntarily exercised their options in 2015 and were now estopped from challenging those choices.

The petitioners argued that the 2015 DRAP Regulations were ultra vires the DRAP Act because the Federal Government had not framed the requisite statutory rules for promotions and service conditions under Section 7(m) of the Act. However, the Court found the regulations to be valid and upheld the promotion process initiated by DRAP.

While upholding the validity of the regulations, the Court acknowledged that DRAP had not complied with its statutory duty to frame the necessary rules for seniority, promotion, and service conditions as mandated by Section 23 and Section 7(m) of the DRAP Act. The Court directed the Federal Government to frame these rules within two months, based on recommendations from DRAP’s Policy Board.

The petitioners challenged the establishment of a Departmental Promotion Board, arguing that only DRAP’s Policy Board had the authority to recommend promotions. However, the Court found that the promotions were lawful and aligned with the 2015 Regulations. The Court rejected claims that the promotions were made without lawful authority.

The judgment referenced Mustafa Impex Vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808) and Zia Ghafoor Piracha Vs. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi (2004 SCMR 35), underscoring that powers granted by statute must be exercised by the Federal Government and that regulations must not substitute for statutory rules.

The Federal Government must, within two months, frame the necessary statutory rules for the promotion, seniority, and service conditions of DRAP employees.

The process for the promotion of Additional Directors to Directors, initiated under the 2015 Regulations, was declared lawful.

The Court disposed of the petitions, affirming that the options exercised by the petitioners to remain Civil Servants were binding and irrevocable. Additionally, the Court emphasized the need for DRAP and the Federal Government to comply with their statutory obligations under the DRAP Act.