2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The backdrop of this writ petition is that the petitioner who was a calligrapher in the Progressive Paper Limited was terminated on 30-11-1991 but was allowed pension at the rate of 40% of his salary. However, he was not paid pension since 1-12-1996 and as such approached the Federal Service Tribunal through Appeal No.411/L of 1999. The petitioner's appeal was accepted through judgment, dated 28-7-2004 whereby the respondents were directed to pay pension to the petitioner under the P.P.L. Pension Rules, 1985 with effect from 1-12-1996.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, the Chief Executive, Progressive Paper Limited through its Chairman filed C.P. No.2680/L of 2004 before the Honourable Supreme Court but the leave was declined and the petition was dismissed in the following terms: -- "The petitioner had denied pension to an employee for almost 10 years and had dragged him into litigation before all kinds of fora. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000 to the said respondent, as costs, within one month and the copies of the receipt evidencing the said payment shall be filed with the Assistant Registrar of this Court within the said period of time, for the information of this Bench."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the judgment of the 'Honourable Supreme Court dated 11-5-2005, the petitioner is still deprived of is lawful right of pension which is otherwise virtually a contempt of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the High Court cannot get the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal implemented through the course of writ petition and that the respondent No.1 Progressive Paper Limited, being a privatized entity, is no more available in the field and as such the ' judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan cannot be implemented.

5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.

6. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner's grievance relates to the period when the respondent No.1 was functioning and it is also an undisputed fact that the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal as contested by respondent No.1 and even the C. P. L. A. was filed by respondent No.1 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which was decided on 11-5-2005. So far the power of the High Court in the impugned controversy is concerned, we can refer a number of judgments like M.A. Rashid Rana v. Chief Secretary 1999 PLC (C.S.) 623, Ghulam Sarwar v. Habib Bank Limited 2001 PLC (C.S.) 198 and Muhammad Siddique Detho v. State Life Insurance Corporation 2005 PLC (C.S.) 946, wherein the same proposition was resolved by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

7. In addition to this, another aspect of the impugned matter is that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and according to the provisions of Article 187(2) of the Constitution this Court can come for the rescue of the petitioner and the said provisions are reproduced as follows:

"(2) Any such direction, order or decree shall be enforceable throughout Pakistan and shall, where it is to be executed in a Province, or a territory or an area not forming part of a Province but within the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Province, be executed as if it has been issued by the High Court of that Province."

9. So far the responsibility of petitioner's pension is concerned, suffice it to refer the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2006's preamble which is as follows:-- "Whereas it is expedient to provide for an expeditious mechanism to resolve all disputes relating to privatization;"

10. If the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of privatization of Progressive Paper Limited are found to be correct even then the petitioner cannot be denied the right of pension which is to be paid by the respondent Privatization Commission as per its foremost duty.

11. Keeping in view the arguments of both the learned counsel and perusal of the record, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondent Privatization Commission, Government of Pakistan, to make arrangement for the pension and due emoluments and pay to the petitioner within a period of one month positively under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. H.B.T./A-57/L Petition allowed.