2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S.4

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Mere filing of a petition by the respondents before the Supreme Court against the decision of Service Tribunal cannot automatically suspend the operation of judgment of the Services Tribunal. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana Additional Advocate-General for Respondents. The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the respondents compulsory retired the petitioner from the service vide order, dated 5-6-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Service Appeal No. 2037 of 2002 in the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was accepted vide judgment, dated 12-3-2003 but in spite .of that the respondents failed to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents have no lawful authority not to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal. He further submits that the respondents filed report and parawise comments as directed by this Court and took a stand that respondents filed petition before the Honourable Supreme Court against, the judgment of Service Tribunal, dated 12-3-2003 which is pending adjudication. He further submits that the judgment of the Service Tribunal has not been suspended by the Honourable Supreme Court as is depicted from the report and parawise comments filed by, the respondents.

2. The learned law officers submits that the respondents filed appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court against the judgment of Service Tribunal, dated 12-3-2003, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as controversy between the parties has not -been finally decided upto the apex Court. He further submits that the petitioner wants execution of the judgment of the Service Tribunal, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not

3. The learned counsel of the petitioner is rebuttal submits that direction be issued to the .respondents to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal subject to the condition that in case judgment of Service Tribunal has not been suspended by the Honourable Supreme

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

5. The preliminary objection of the learned law officer that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as this Court has no jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal, has no force, in view or law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:-- "MTs. Monawar Sanni v. Director Army Education 1991 SCMR 135; Inamul-1-Iaq v. Secretary Establishment Division 1982 Law Notes Lah. 437; Khalid Mehmood Inspector v. Inspector General Police 1999 PLC (C.S.) 558; Sardar Muhaqimad Arshaa v. Azad Government through Chief Secretary 1998 PLC (C. S.) I 217; Farooq Ahmad Khan v. Shaukat Jan Bouch. 1998 PLC (C.S.) 425 and Qazi Muhammad Anwar. v. Federation of Pakistan PLC 2000 C.S. 1165". 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 Service Tribunal has been automatically suspended. In this view of the matter, the Constitutional petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal within 3 months from today, in case judgment of the Service Tribunal has not been suspended or would not be suspended during this period. The learned law officer is directed to notify the order to respondents to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal within 3 months in terms of aforesaid direction. Copy `dasti' on payment of usual charges. M.A.W./M-37/L Petition accepted.