ABDUL HAMID SAQFI Versus SERVICE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ A Review petition has been moved to reiterate the following points arising out of and dealt with in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.82 of 1982‑‑

(i) The seniority list of Selection Grade Clerks was required to be maintained separately and "to be acted upon as such for further promotion."

(ii) The respondents who were senior had failed to achieve selection grade in competition with the petitioners and therefore lost their preferential right on account of seniority also.

2. A contempt application (C.M. S4‑R of 1987) has also been moved by one of the petitioners before us for proceeding against the respondent functionaries in delaying the implementation of the decision of this Court and for incorrectly implementing it.

3. Yet another application (C.M. No.151‑R of 1987) has been filed by the petitioner seeking review for clarification of our judgment so as to limit its operation and effect on a question of law to parties to the proceedings protecting those not parties from its consequential effects.

4. So far as the review petition is concerned, we find that what is claimed is a rehearing and not correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. The two main questions raised in the review petition were indeed the subject‑matter of detailed discussion and finding was recorded after considering every aspect of the ,problem. The review power is not meant for getting the matter reheard. Hence it is dismissed.

5. The delay of five months or so in consultation and implementation of a judgment of this Court is not such as to call for proceeding in contempt. If any of the vested rights of the petitioner has been violated in implementing the decision he has his remedy in law. Hence the contempt application is misconceived and is dismissed.

6. The sort of clarification sought for by the petitioner cannot) be granted for "all executive and judicial authorities throughout, Pakistan" have been placed under a constitutional duty to "act in aid' of the Supreme Court" (Art.190). This application too has no merit and is dismissed.

7. M.I./A‑229/S Petitions dismissed.