Tue September 25, 2018
Advertisement
Can't connect right now! retry

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!
Must Read

National

January 22, 2015

Share

Advertisement

IHC holds govt responsible for backlog of cases

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court has held the government responsible for record litigation pending before the courts, noting that it is caused by the executive’s failure to ensure good governance, provide effective and inexpensive justice and because of its acts of omissions and commissions.
In a recent order in a case of government employees, authored by Justice Athar Minallah, the IHC directed the federal government to set up an alternative dispute resolution forum for government servants but noted, “Besides the grievances of the employees, the courts are clogged with litigation relating to alleged violation of fundamental rights of the citizens by the acts and omissions of the executive.”
“The vast backlog of unheard cases mostly relates to the alleged acts and omissions of executive arising from alleged bad governance,” the order said, adding that the recent statement of executive authorities (Prime Minister) regarding performance of the judiciary seems to ignore the reality.
The order also reminded the executive, “The environment in which the lower judiciary dispenses justice and the means at its disposal are also a matter of consideration for the executive and those in control of the exchequer.”
The government is also told, “Decision of introducing expensive projects and giving priority over dispensation of justice are within the discretion of the executive authorities, but at the same time taking appropriate measures in ensuring good governance, so that Courts are not clogged with aggrieved citizens are also a duty of the executive.”
Justice Minallah also wrote, “Similarly, it is the duty of the executive to provide effective and inexpensive forum of redress of grievances to its employees, including those employed in entities controlled by the federal government.”
The order in Muhammad Ajmal vs OGDCL, etc. case dated January 16 says that the large number of litigation relating to service matters of the employees of

entities controlled by the federal government reflects adversely on the state of governance of such organisations and entities. “They clog the courts on one hand, while on the other raise concerns. It undeniably manifests a grave wrong in the system, creating an impression that the employees are not being heard and have been left without any remedy.”
The order noted that when the state fails in providing inexpensive and effective forums for dispute resolutions, it gives rise to an intolerant, lawless and chaotic society. “The large number of aggrieved employees of entities controlled by the federal government appears to be a classic example of the apathy of the managers in providing to its employees effective and inexpensive forum to redress their grievances.”
Most of the employees, the order read, can hardly afford to litigate within their meager means and may retire in pursuit of justice. Many ultimately might be declared to have been wronged, but by then it may be too late as “justice delayed is justice denied”.
“The fault, I regret to say, has been on account of the indifference of the employers and the federal government. In the first place if the employers had attended the grievances of its employees in a fair, just and transparent manner, there would have been no need for them to approach this Court at a cost. It is a fundamental right of each employee to have inexpensive and effective access to justice which inevitably includes an effective and inexpensive forum for redressal of grievances,” Justice Minallah noted.
The order directed the government to provide its employees with an alternative dispute resolution forum. “They may consider appointing a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court as a forum for alternative dispute resolution in case of the petitions pending before this Court relating to grievances of the employees who are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal Services Tribunal. This may be an interim arrangement while the federal government considers providing a permanent tribunal or forum for such employees.”

Advertisement

Comments

Advertisement
Advertisement

Topstory

Opinion

Newspost

Editorial

National

World

Sports

Business

Karachi

Lahore

Islamabad

Peshawar