GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others vs Dr. NAVEEDA TUFAIL and others
These review petitions were filed by the Government of Punjab against a Supreme Court judgment that disposed of several civil petitions as appeals. The petitioner sought review on the grounds that federal and other provincial policies for regularizing ad hoc employees could not be applied to Punjab under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, that ad hoc employees cannot claim permanent adjustment except through prescribed legal methods, and that the respondents had failed to avail themselves of prior opportunities to appear before the Punjab Public Service Commission. The respondents contended that these points had already been thoroughly considered in the judgment under review. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that no patent error on the face of the record or valid legal ground for review was established, as all raised grounds had already been considered. The Court further directed the Government of Punjab to implement the original judgment within one month.
- Can a review petition be maintained on grounds that have already been considered and decided in the original judgment?
- Does the principle of equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 allow ad hoc employees in one province to claim regularization based on policies implemented in other provinces or by the Federal Government?
- What constitutes a patent error on the face of the record sufficient to justify the review of a Supreme Court judgment?
- Article 25, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.- The above review petitions have been preferred against the judgment dated 25-9-2002 in the Civil Petitions Nos.1093 to1117 of 2002, 1135 to 1141 of 2002, 1169 to 1183 of 2002, 1190 to 1214 of 2002 and 1229 of 2002 which were disposed of as appeals.
2. Learned Advocate-General, Punjab, has sought review of the judgment on the grounds firstly that the policies for regularization of the ad hoc employees introduced by the Federal Government and other Provinces cannot be made applicable to the ad hoc employees in the Province of Punjab, therefore, the principle of equal treatment as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, .1973 was not attracted in the present cases. Secondly, a person holding an ad hoc appoint cannot claim permanent adjustment and regularization, except in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment under the law and thirdly, the respondents in the, review petitions had already been given more than one chance to appear before the Punjab Public Service Commission for permanent appointment/ regularization but they failed to avail the opportunity and consequently, they were not entitled to be given a fresh chance of appearing before the Public Service Commission.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-caveators in the present petitions, on the other hand, has contended that all the three points raised in support of these petitions have already been considered in the judgment under review and the Government of Punjab has filed these review petitions without any legal justification and was unnecessarily prolonging the implementation of the judgment.
4. We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents-caveators have not been able to fmd out any patent error on the face of record or a legal ground for review of the judgment as all the grounds taken in support of these petitions have already been considered in the judgment. It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that despite lapse of a considerable period, the relevant quarters in the Government of Punjab have taken no step for implementation of the judgment. We, therefore, direct that concerned authorities in the Government of Punjab must ensure implementation of judgment within one month.
5. These petitions, with the above direction, stand dismissed.