HUMAYUN AKHTAR vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Population
This matter concerns a long-standing litigation initiated by the petitioner, Humayun Akhtar, regarding his service termination and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner had previously sought relief through various appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-litigate issues surrounding his service termination and reinstatement, specifically regarding the implementation of a Federal Service Tribunal order dated 20-12-1983, which had been previously challenged and set aside by the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claims were without merit, noting that the specific Tribunal judgment he sought to enforce had been set aside by the Supreme Court in 1984. Furthermore, a review petition against that earlier Supreme Court judgment had also been dismissed in 1986. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the question of implementing the set-aside Tribunal order did not arise. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek the implementation of a judicial order that has been explicitly set aside by a superior court in previous final adjudications.
- Can a party seek the implementation of a judicial order that has been set aside by a superior court?
- Does the dismissal of a review petition against a Supreme Court judgment preclude further litigation on the same subject matter?
ORDER
' The petitioner has been litigating since 1982. In Civil Appeal No,140 of 1984 and Civil Petition No,121-R of 1983 (and 367 other petitions), titled "Federation of Pakistan and another v. Riaz Ahmad Baig and another, reported in 1984 SCM R 759, in para. 22, this Court with regard to the petitioner, observed as under:-- ' "Humayun Akhtar, petitioner in C.P.S.L.A. No,740 of 1983 and respondent in Federation's C.Ps.S.L.A.
Nos.300-R of 1983 and 64-R of 1984, had been under suspension from 19-9-1979 in a disciplinary proceeding against him. While still under suspension, his case had been referred to the Commission under the Ordinance but not approved, and in the result his services were terminated with effect from 17-9-1981. His Appeal No,5(R) of 1982, before the Tribunal, was partly accepted on 23-2-1982 in the same terms as described in paragraph 7 above.
' C.Ps.S.L.A. No,740 of 1983 filed by him and No,300- R of 1983 by the Federation are directed against the Tribunal's order passed in that appeal. He, however, filed another Appeal No,91 (R) of 1983- before the Tribunal raising the question of the effect of his automatic reinstatement in 1979 and challenging the legality of the suspension, which appeal was accepted by the Tribunal vide order, dated 20-12-1983 and in the result the suspension was held to be void, his re-instatement into service with effect from 19-9-1979 was ordered and it was further held that his case was not covered by the Ordinance and as such the Tribunal's decision in the earlier Appeal No,5(R) of 1982 directing that his case be referred to the Commission was to that extent superseded. Federation's C.P.S.L.A No,64-R of 1984 is directed against this latter order. Humayun Akhtar contends that as he had been under a disciplinary enquiry at the relevant time, his case ought not to have been referred to the Commission until the completion of that enquiry. He, however, is unable to cite any rule to support him in this regard. We thus find no merit in his case."
' A review petition (C.R.P. No,28-R/84) was filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid reported judgment which was dismissed by this Court on 25-2-1986.
2. The learned High Court in the impugned judgment after going through the previous judgments rightly held that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No,91 (R) of 1983 on 20-12-1983 was set aside by this Court, therefore, the question of its implementation does not arise.
3. This petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and .