MRS. S.R. MALIK Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a service matter. The petitioner, who has since retired, was working as Assistant Director Academic. She was aggrieved of the order passed by the respondents by means of which she was superseded and refused pro forma promotion. The appeal filed by her was accepted by the Services Tribunal on 13‑11‑1986 on the ground that the summary submitted by department of the Governor was inaccurate. The operative portion of the judgment of Services Tribunal reads as under:‑‑

"We set aside the impugned orders and remand the‑case back to the Provincial Selection Board for considering her case on merits, in view of the documentary evidence so produced before us."

The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Government on 26‑5‑1987.

2. In the present Constitutional petition, the grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the judgment of the Services Tribunal as upheld has not been implemented by the respondents. In the para‑wise comments, position taken by the respondents, on the other hand, is that pursuant to the direction of the Services Tribunal, the matter was examined by the Departmental Promotional Committee on more than one occasion and the claim of the petitioner was rejected on merits.

3. As is obvious from the above, dispute between the parties pertains to terms and conditions of a civil servant. The petition therefore appears to be barred by Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Punjab Services Tribunal Act, 1974. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that the real grievance of the petitioner is that the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal has not been implemented and such a relief can only be granted by any of the Punjab Service Tribunals. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Even if order of the Services Tribunal has not been implemented by the respondents, the matter is still germane to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner and should, therefore, have been taken to the Services Tribunal which even otherwise can more appropriately be decided as to whether its previous order has been flouted or disobeyed. In this view of the matter, this petition is held to be non‑maintainable. She may, if so advised, seek her remedy before the appropriate forum.

For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./M‑864/L Petition dismissed.