2022 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.

This Constitutional Petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ("the Constitution") with the following prayers: a) That on grounds that flagrant violations of Constitutional Provisions have been made by the respondents(s) at various stages of the case, therefore it is prayed that the decision of Provincial taken in its meeting held on 14.04.1993 with regard to the petitioner may be implemented in letter and spirit. b) That further declaring that in light of decisions, opinions sought from their department and declaring despite such facts the decision taken against the petitioner by considering him to have been inducted in CM Secretariate be declared as totally violating the constitutional guarantees available to the petitioner. c) That the letter dated 25th September 2020 issued by respondent No.3 wherein the petitioner has been warned on agitating his fundamental right be declared as totally without lawful authority and jurisdiction and thus of no legal consequences; d) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in the interest of justice, fair play and equity. "

2. Heard. Record perused. The record transpires that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Programmer (B-17) in the Chief Minister Secretariate on Ad hoc basis for a period of six months, thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Public Service Commission against the advertised post in the Board of Revenue and after being qualified was posted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner assumed the charge of the post of Computer Programmer in the office of Deputy Commissioner Quetta on 08th April, 1993. The Provincial Cabinet in its meeting held of 14th April 1993 regularized the services of different departments. On 02.03.1994 the petitioner submitted an application to the Chief Minister and requested for his posting as Computer Programmer in the Chief Minister Secretariate. The Chief Secretary vide Order No.S-111-24(77)/94-S&GAD dated 03.07.1994 attached the petitioner in the Chief Minister Secretariat. The Government of Balochistan vide Notification No.S-111-2(4)/96-S&GAD dated 22nd July, 1996 inducted the petitioner in the office of Deputy Commissioner Quetta as Computer Programmer in the Chief Minister's Secretariate against the existing vacancy. The record further reveals that the respondent No.1 vide Notification No.S-III-15(2)CM/2016-S&GAD/2143-95 repatriated the petitioner to his parent department as under: In compliance of Judgments dated 12.06.2013 and 05.01.2015 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal Original Petition No.89/2011 and Civil Review Petition No.193/2013 and subsequent approval of the competent authority, the absorption of services of Mr. Furqan Khan son of Khan Muhammad from Deputy Commissioner Office, Quetta to Chief Minister's Secretariate vide Notification of even number dated July 22, 1996 is hereby cancelled/withdrawn ab-initio.

2. Mr. Furqan Khan is hereby repatriated to his parent department i.e Deputy Commission Office, Quetta with immediate effect.

3. Since the petitioner was appointed on Ad hoc basis as Computer Programmer for six months in 1992, whereafter the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement appeared before the Public Service Commission for the post of Computer Programmer in the Board of Revenue. The petitioner qualified the test and interview of the said post and was selected, as such the petitioner without any reservation/objection joined the office of Deputy Commissioner in the year 1993 and subsequently approached the competent authority for regularization of his Ad hoc service in the Chief Minister Secretariate. On joining the service in Deputy Commissioner office, the petitioner was inducted in the Chief Minister Secretariate. The petitioner joined the DC office on his own wish. The record transpires that the petitioner never performed the duties as regular employee in the Chief Minister Secretariate. The petitioner requested for his regularization in the light of 25 years old decision of the cabinet, which is not tenable in view of doctrine of laches and why the petitioner prefers the Ad hoc service over the regular service as both are of the same grade and nomenclature.

4. The contention of the petitioner that he has no knowledge with regard to the decision of cabinet in 1993 has no logic. The decision of cabinet is sent to the department which is not a classified document. The decision of cabinet sent to the concerned department; the department has to take prompt action to effect to the decision. It is the responsibility of concerned department's Secretary to watch the progress until the decision is complied with.

5. The petitioner filed the instant petition for implementation of the provincial cabinet order passed in the year 1993. The law of limitation provides element of certainly in the conduct of human officer. The object of law of limitation is to help vigilant and not to indolent. It is well known maxim "delay defeats equities" and the words of lord Condon a court of equity has always referred its aid to state demand, where a party has slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time. The question of laches in filing constitution petition has to give serious consideration unless the plausible explanation is forthcoming for such delay and same cannot be overlooked. The petitioner after induction became silent, when he was repatriated then he filed application for implementation of the decision of the cabinet passed in the year 1993, which is time barred. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Islam v. Inspector General of Police Islamabad 2011 SCMR 8, whereby it has been held as under:

3. The appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner before Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad was dismissed being barred by time i.e. 42 days. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Tarar, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner could not furnish any plausible justification for condonation of delay by the learned Federal Service Tribunal except that a review petition was preferred by the petitioner which resulted in some delay. The said justification has probably been made in oblivion of the fact that no provisions qua review is available and hence no review should have been filed. It transpired from scrutiny of record that departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by time and accordingly the appeal preferred before Federal Service Tribunal cannot be held within time. In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Muhammad Sami v. Additional District Judge (2007 SCMR 621), NED University of Engineering and Technology v. Ashfaq Hussain Shah (2006 SCMR 453), State Bank of Pakistan v. Khyber Zaman (2004 SCMR 1426). The question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter as it has got its own significance IF and would have substantial bearing on merits of the case. The law of limitation must be followed strictly. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Chairman, District Screening Committee, Lahore and another v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi (PLD 1976 SC 258), S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee Lahore and another (1978 SCMR 367), Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 104), Punjab Province v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1956 FC 72), Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97), Chief Kwame Asante v. Chief Kwame Tawia (PLD 1949 PC 45), Hussain Bakhsh and others v. Settlement Commissioner and another (PLD 1969 Lah. 1039), Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236), Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331), WAPDA v. Abdul Rashid Bhatti, (1989 SCMR 467), Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azim Khan (1949 SCMR 1271), Inspector-General of Police, Balochistan v. Jawad Haider and another (1987 SCMR 1606), WAPDA v. Aurangzeb (1988 SCMR 1354), Muhammad Naseem Sipra. v. Secretary, Government of Punjab (1989 SCMR 1149), Muhammad Ismail Memon v. Government of Sindh and another (1981 SCMR 244), Qazi Sardar Bahadar v. Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and others (1984 SCMR 177), Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council and others (1956 AC 736), Province of East Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Abdu Miah (PLD 1959 SC (Pak), 276 and Mehr Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Government of the Punjab and others (1977 PLC (C.S.T.) 165) and Fazal Elahi Siddiqi v. Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 692). In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine MH/34/Bal. Petition dismissed.