2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J.

By invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief. (i) Notifications impugned in the instant writ petition may kindly be declared as illegal without lawful authority, void ab initio, hence ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to adjust the petitioners in their services. (iii) Any other remedy not specifically prayed for but to which petitioners are entitled, in the circumstance of the case may also be granted to the petitioners.

2. The requisite facts for disposal of the instant petition, as per the contents of petition, are that the petitioners were appointed as Teachers in Working Folk Grammar Schools in the morning shift by the respondents after fulfilling the codal and legal formalities. They were, later on, transferred in the second shift, where they had performed their duties. It was alleged in the petition that through different notifications, though, the services of the petitioners were terminated, but, later on, were reinstated in services. It was also averred that the respondents have once again terminated them from their services without giving them any notice, by which their fundamental and legal rights have been violated and, as such, they have got no other appropriate and efficacious remedy filed the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while making reliance on the judgment of this Court titled Muhammad Younas and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Overseas Pakistani and Human Resource Development (HRD) and others, rendered in W.P No. 347-B of 2016 dated 25.10.2018 contended that case of the present petitioners and that of the petitioners in the above referred writ petition is at par with each other, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be treated alike. He further contended that termination of the petitioners' services, when valuable rights have accrued to them for having remained in service, are against the law and the fundamental rights as protected by Chapter-II of the constitution.

4. Arguments heard and record perused.

5. Though, as per Para No.1 of the petition, all the petitioners were appointed as Teachers in the Working Folk Grammar Schools in the morning shift by the respondents but the record speaks otherwise, as out of the thirty five (35) petitioners, only fourteen (14) were appointed as Teachers, while there is no record regarding appointments/terminations of the petitioners Nos.16 and 20, whereas rest of the nineteen (19) petitioners were appointed as Aya, PTI, Naib Qasid, Junior Clerk, Electrician, Sanitary Worker, Mali, and Driver. The detailed description with regard to the appointments, terminations and their job descriptions is tabulated as under: - S. No. Petitioner's No. Date of appointment Date of Termination Job Description Posted at 1. 1. 20.07.2012 17.06.2013 Teacher for working Folks Grammar Higher Secondary School. Hattar 2. 2. 14.02.2012 25.11.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Takht Bhai 3. 3. 31.03.2012 25.11.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Takht Bhai 4. 4. 16.03.2012 25.11.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Thall Wazir 5. 5. 16.03.2012 25.11.2013 Aya in Working Folk Grammar School. Thall Wazir 6. 6. 25.08.2011 25.11.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Swat 7. 7. 14.02.2012 25.11.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Takht Bhai 8. 8. 05.04.2012 16.09.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Bannu 9. 9. 10.03.2012 25.11.2013 PTI in Working Folk Grammar School. Kohat-II 10. 10. 16.01.2013 25.09.2013 Naib Qasid Monotec. Institute Peshawar 11. 11. 31.10.2011 25.11.2013 Subject Specialist in Working Folk Grammar School. Swat 12. 12. 01.10.2012 25.11.2013 Junior Clerk in Working Folk Grammar School. Srao Norang 13. 13. 19.06.2012 Security Guard working City 352 Family Quarter Hakim Abad 14. 14. 12.10.2012 Electrician in worker City 360 Family Flats. Hattar 15. 15. 07.09.2012 25.11.2013 Naib Qasid in Working Folk Grammar School. Kohat-I 16. 16. -- -- -- -- 17. 17. 21.01.2013 29.05.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Shahbaz Ahmed Khel Bannu. 18. 18. 21.01.2013 25.09.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Shahbaz AhmedKhel Bannu 19. 19. 14.03.2012 25.11.2013 Sanitary worker in working Folk Grammar School Kohat-II 20. 20. -- -- -- -- 21. 21. 29.03.2012 25.11.2013 Mali in Working Folk Grammar School. Thall Wazir 22. 22. 29.03.2011 08.07.2013 Naib Qasid Zonal Office Haripur 23. 23. 27.09.2012 25.11.2013 Mali in Working Folk Grammar School. Karak 24 24 27.09.2012

Driver in working Fold Grammar School D.I. Khan 25. 25. 28.03.2011 08.07.2013 Sanitary Worker Junior upgraded school. Haripur. 26. 26. 25.11.2011 25.11.2013 Mali Worker City Takht Bhai 27. 27.

08.07.2013 Mali. D.I. Khan 28. 28. 21.04.2011 25.11.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Karak 29. 29. 27.04.2011 25.11.2013 Mali in Working Folk Grammar School. Karak 30. 30. 02.07.2012

AYA in Working Folk Grammar School. D.I. Khan 31. 31. 16.08.2012 08.07.2013 Electrician City 384 at Pagage-II. Gadoon Amazai 32. 32. 16.09.2012 16.09.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Bannu 33. 33. 25.04.2012 23.10.2014 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School Bannu 34. 34. 20.07.2012 25.11.2013 Teacher in Working Folk Grammar School. Tank. 35.

35. Repeated the same ptr at Sr.No.17

6. Record further depicts that no order by which the petitioners were reinstated, except the petitioner No.1, who was reinstated on 21.08.2013, subsequently, was terminated on 25.09.2013, was placed on file. Similarly, nothing is available on record which could show that after his alleged reinstatement, he has ever marked his attendance in any register. So far as, the judgment delivered in W.P No.347-B of 2016 whereby through consolidated judgment almost 39 writ petitions were decided is concerned, it is pertinent to mentioned that petitioners of those petitions, though, were terminated but they were, later on, reinstated and, thus, were performing their duties at their place of posting in their respective schools. They had properly substantiated their cases by placing on file the record of different meetings held on different dates wherein the fate of regularization of their services were discussed, but, here in the instant petition, the case is altogether different as the present petitioners were alleged to have been appointed as Teacher and out of thirty five (35) petitioners, only fourteen (14) petitioners were Teachers while rest of the petitioners were appointed on different posts, the description of which has been given in the last preceding para. It is also pertinent to mention here that the judgment, referred to above, passed in W.P. No.347-B of 2016, whereby the other connected writ petitions were also decided, were filed in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 while the instant petition was filed on 25.01.2020, and that too, without proper documentation, disclosure of fact and cause of action and that without any plausible explanation for filing the petition in the year 2020, irrespective of this fact that almost all the petitioners were terminated in the year 2013.

7. The doctrine of "delay and laches" being an equitable relief is based on the principle that every person taking equitable relief must not sleep over his right, if he does so, delay will defeat him. It is based on the well-known doctrine of equity "delay defeats equity". The petitioners were terminated somewhere in the year 2013 but they, after awaking from deep slumber, filed the instant petition on 2020, after the delay of about six years, therefore, the petition is also hit by the principle of "delay or laches", which is based on the maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit," which means equity aids the vigilant and not the ones, who sleep over his rights. It refers to the unreasonable delay enforcing a legal claim. "Sleeping over his rights" is, therefore, such a right which is no longer available as it is barred by the latches.

8. While discussing the principle of latches in juxtaposition with equitable and discretionary relief, the apex Court in a case titled Member (S&R) Chief Settlement Commissioner Board of Revenue v. Syed Ashfaque Ali as reported in (PLD 2003 SC 132) has held that: "On account of laches in setting the machinery of law into motion they have indeed disentitled themselves to the exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, which in all cases must be exercised in order to foster the ends of justice and to right a wrong. Writ jurisdiction is undoubtedly discretionary and extra-ordinary in nature which may not be invoked by a party who demonstrates a style of slackness and laxity on his part. Furthermore, if a party does not choose legal remedy available under the Statute strictly speaking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be exercised in his favour. Law is well-settled that a party guilty of gross negligence and laches is not entitled to the equitable relief."

9. Apart from the above, we have also noticed that the petitioners have not given the details that after joining their duties for how much period they performed their duties and from which particular date their salaries were stopped and these are the questions which cannot be resolved by this Court by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and, similarly, the question of delay would have to be examined with reference to the facts of each case. Wisdom is derived from the principle as laid down in a case titled Ardeshir Cowasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi (1999 SCMR 2883).

10. So, keeping in view the above legal as well as factual position, especially, when the petitioners have slept over the matter for more than six years in seeking the redressal, cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of their own laxity and, similarly, cannot get any benefit of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled Government of Punjab, through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat Lahore v. Sameena Parveen (2009 SCMR 1). Viewed in the above perspective, this petition is dismissed not only on the ground of being hit by the doctrine of 'laches' but also on the ground of being involved an intricate question of facts as well. SA/375/P Petition dismissed.