HAMID HUSSAIN and others vs SECRETARY HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, and others
The appellants, who were contract employees, challenged the termination of their services by the competent authority. Their constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellants sought an adjournment, requesting to await the outcome of a similar pending case (Civil Appeal No. 468 of 2010) that was reserved for judgment. The Supreme Court declined the request for further adjournment, noting that the appellants failed to distinguish their case from the precedent established in Abid Iqbal Hafiz and others v. Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 2010 SC 841). Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal but granted the appellants the liberty to seek the resurrection of the appeal via a review petition should the judgment in the pending matter provide grounds favorable to their case, a course of action to which the respondents consented.
- Can an appeal be disposed of with liberty to file a review petition if a pending case establishes a favorable precedent?
- Is a request for adjournment to await a pending decision mandatory when the current case is indistinguishable from established precedent?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Appellants in the instant case were contract employees and their services were dispensed with by the Competent Authority in the Department which order was assailed before the learned High Court in constitutional jurisdiction and the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Yesterday learned counsel was confronted with the law laid down by this Court in Abid Iqbal Hafiz and others v. Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 2010 SC 841) and he sought adjournment to further prepare his brief. Today he has not been able to persuade us to hold that the case of the appellants is distinguishable from the one to which reference has been made above. However, he submits that in Civil Appeal No, 468 of 2010 a similar issue has been raised and the Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice after hearing arguments has reserved it for judgment.
2. In these circumstances, he requests for yet another adjournment to await the decision in the pending case.
3 We have considered this submission and are not inclined to adjourn this case any further.
However, in the interest of justice, we dispose of this appeal with the observation that if the judgment in the pending matter makes out a case for the appellants, he will have the option to have this appeal resurrected by filing a review petition to which respondents' learned counsel has no objection. Disposed of accordingly.