FAZAL ELAHI vs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. and another

ORDER

' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner is an Engineer Supervisor (Traffic) in the Telephone Exchange, Kasur. The petitioner submitted an application before the respondents with the prayer that the petitioner's seniority be fixed with effect from 23-1- 1961 i,e, date of his appointment in service of the respondents, which was refused by the respondents vide order, dated 26-6-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed representation before the respondent, which was also refused by the respondents vide order, dated 11-8-2000. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore with the prayer that the order, dated 11-8-2000 be set aside and the petitioner be allowed the seniority 23-1- 1961 on which date, he was appointed in the cadre of Telephone Operator with further prayer that the pro forma seniority and promotion be granted to him in the cadre of Engineering Supervisor (B- 11) in accordance with revised seniority list of the Telephone Operators. The appeal was accepted by the Service Tribunal vide judgment, dated 2-7-2003. The respondents failed to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that it is the duty and obligation of the respondents to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal. He further submits that the petitioner is being penalized by in action of the respondents. He further submits that the respondents have no lawful authority, not to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal. He further submits that the respondents have filed report and parawise comments as directed by this Court vide order, dated 22-10-2003 and took a stand that the respondents have filed C.P.S.L.A. No, 2349-L-2003 before the Honourable Supreme Court against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 2-7-2003 and no date has been fixed in it so far as is depicted from the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents.

3. The leatned counsel of the respondents submits that the respondents being aggrieved by the judgment of the Service Tribunal, filed the petition before the Honourable Supreme Court as is depicted from the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents in this Constitutional petition. He further submits that the petitioner is a civil servant in view of section .2-A newly-added in the Civil Servant Act, 1973, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner has only filed this writ petition for the implementation of the judgment of the Service Tribunal and this Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal.

He further submits that operation of the judgment of the Service Tribunal is not suspended by the Honourable Supreme Court.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

6. This Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal, as per law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:- "Inam-ul-Haq, v. Secretary Establishment Division." (1982 Law Notes, Lahore 437), "Mrs. Monawar Sanni, v. Director Army Education." (1991 SCMR 135), "Sardar Muhammad Arshad, v. Azad Government thro: C.S." (1998 PLC (C.S.) 217), "Farooq Ahmad Khan v. Shaukat Jan Bouch." (1998 PLC (C.S.) 425), "Khalid Mehmood Inspector v. Inspector-General Police." (1999 PLC (CS.) 558) and Qazi Muhammad Anwar, v. Federation of Pakistan." (2000 PLC (C.S.) I165).

' Even otherwise, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal, in view of Article 4 of the Constitution, while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "H.M. Rizvi and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others" (PLD 1981 SC 612) and "Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 4 others v. Gul Muhammad Hajano" (2003 SCMR 325).

7. It is also settled principle of law that mere filing of the petition before the Honourable Supreme Court, does not mean that the operation of the judgment of the Service Tribunal has been suspended automatically. The operation of the judgment of the Service Tribunal is not suspended till date as is depicted from the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents in this Constitutional petition. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal within 2 months from today, in case the operation of the judgment of the Service Tribunal is not suspended by the Honourable Supreme Court during this period. The learned counsel of the respondent is directed to notify the order to the respondents to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal within 2-months from today.

' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.