ISLAMABAD    -    The Supreme Court of Paki­stan has been approached against the Islamabad High Court (IHC) order of de­claring the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Service Regulations 2014 as statu­tory. In this regard, Director General (DG) Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Wednesday filed an appeal under Article 185(2) of the constitution against the IHC order dated 02-05-23. He submitted that Obaid-ur-Rehman Abbasi and Syed Mubarak Shah, employees of the CAA, are governed by service regu­lation framed by the CAA Board under Section 12 read with Section 27 of the CAA Ordinance 1982. He men­tioned that the CAA Board in its 192nd meeting on 08-04-2022 declared the approval of the conditional ‘Special House Building Grant’ to be void ab-initio and also amended the Regulation 74(2) of the CAA Employ­ees Pay and Pension Regu­lations 2014 by omitting sub-regulation (2). He stated that the respondents Obaid-ur-Rehman Abbasi, ex-Senior Additional Director (Legal) and Syed Mubarak Shah, ex-senior Additional Director (APS) claimed pay­ment of conditional ‘Special Housing Building Grant’ from CAA which was not approved. They filed a writ petition on 16-05-22 after the amendment in the CAA Service Regulations 2014. The IHC on 02-05-23 passed an interim order by declar­ing CAA Service Regulations statutory in negation of the settled law by the apex court. The IHC had failed to appreciate law of the case in its true perspective while declaring CAA Service Regu­lations statutory and giving pronouncement in favour of the respondents. The peti­tioner said that the IHC had erred in law by holding CAA Service Regulations 2014 statutory when this question has already been settled by the apex court. While declar­ing CAA Service Regulations as statutory, the high court had erred in law by not fol­lowing the ordains of Article 189 of the Constitution. He continued that the IHC also failed to appreciate the con­ditionality of Article 199(1) that the petition is not main­tainable when alternate, ad­equate and efficacious rem­edy is available under the CAA Employees Appeal Reg­ulations 2014 in the form of a ‘representation’, ‘appeal’ and ‘review’. He said that the IHC while declaring Service Regulations 2014 as statu­tory had failed to correctly read the ratio decidendi of para 12 of NESCOM case (PLDA 2016 SC 377).