RIAZ QADEER KHAN LODHI vs SECRETARY, POPULATION PLANNING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
The petitioner filed an application under Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 seeking contempt proceedings against the Population Planning Division, Government of Pakistan, for alleged non-compliance with the disposal of his Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 501 of 1983. The petitioner claimed he was entitled to be referred to the Public Service Commission and reinstated upon its recommendation. The core legal question was whether the respondent committed contempt of court by refusing to reinstate the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case fell outside the scope of the conditional offer made by the respondent, as employees already rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission were excluded from re-examination and absorption. Consequently, no disobedience of the court's order was established. The key principle laid down is that contempt proceedings for non-implementation of a judgment cannot succeed where the claimant fails to satisfy the specific qualifying conditions and foundational terms of the settlement or offer incorporated in the court's disposal.
- Can contempt proceedings be initiated for the non-implementation of a judgment when the claimant does not fulfill the qualifying conditions of the underlying offer?
- Are employees previously rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission entitled to re-examination and absorption under a conditional reinstatement offer?
- Order XXVII, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner has moved an application under Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for initiating contempt proceedings against Population Planning Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. His contention is that in terms of the disposal of his Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.501/1983 he was entitled to be referred to the Public Service Commission and on its recommendation to be reinstated in service in the Population Planning Division. There was, according to the petitioner, a refusal on the part of the respondent to implement the orders of this Court.
2. The petitioner had challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 27-1-1983 whereby his Service Appeal No.179 (L)/81 was dismissed on the ground that his case was referred to the Federal Public Service Commission which did not consider him fit for appointment to the post he was holding or any other post of equivalent grade in the Population Planning Division. His claim to be absorbed in the civil service was, therefore, rejected. The very first condition of the offer made by the respondent through the Deputy Attorney-General was that only such of the employees as had not already been rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission were to be re-examined by the Commission and on its recommendation, the respondent was to pass consequential orders.
3. The petitioner was, therefore, not covered by the offer made by the respondent and given effect to by our judgment. In the circumstances, he cannot complain of disobedience of the order and seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent. His application is misconceived and is dismissed.