PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through General Manager, Railway Headquarters

ORDER

JAVED IQBAL, J.---The above captioned appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as similar questions, of law and facts are involved.

2. The writ petitions preferred on behalf of Pakistan Railways have been dismissed vide orders impugned and findings of he Wafaqi Ombudsman dated 28-3-1998 have been kept intact whereby the respondents who are Traffic Inspectors (Retd.) Railways were allowed Air-conditioned Sleeper Passes.

3. Leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 22-4-1999 which is reproduced herein below to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy:-- "By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above three petitions which are directed against the, judgment dated 31-7-1998 and dated 29-7-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos.15549, 15542 and 15328 of 1998 filed by the petitioner against the order of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) inter alia directing the issuance of Air-Conditioned Sleeper Pass to the respondent having pensioner beneficiary, dismissing the same on the ground that petitioner had alternate remedy by way of representation to the President under Article 9(2) of the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.

2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the following questions:--

(i) Whether the petitioner was debarred \from invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution on the ground that he could file representation to the President under the above Order? And

(ii) Whether in view of the clause (2) of Article 9 of the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, the Wafaqi Mohtasib had the jurisdiction to issue a direction of the nature which are subject-matter of the' petition filed by the, petitioners?"

4. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners when asked as to why the alternate remedy which is equally efficacious could not be availed and why representation against the findings of Wafaqi Mohtasib could not be made to the President of Pakistan under Article 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)

Order, 1983, no plausible justification could be furnished. In' fact a futile attempt has been made to cover the inefficiency, careless and callous approach of the officers concerned who failed to invoke the provisions as contained in Article 32 of the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 under the garb of writ petitions which have rightly been dismissed.

' The orders impugned being well-based and unexceptionable hardly warrants interference. The appeals are dismissed being devoid of _merits. 'There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.