1998 PLP 1605 (SCMR)

RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.

Muhammad Ala-ud-Din Babri, the respondent No. l in both the petitions had been working as Ward keeper in the Pakistan Railways General Stores, Mughalpura, Lahore. He was not considered fit for his promotion by the concerned authority. However, on 23-7-1983 the petitioner the Pakistan Railways allowed pro forma promotion to the respondent for fixation of pay for pensionary benefits only on his undertaking dated 1-4-1979 that he would not claim any arrears Despite that, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.2138 of 1984 with a claim to receive arrears of his pay amounting to Rs.1,29,370 (rupees one lac twenty-nine thousand three hundred and seventy which had become due to him on account of his pro forma promotion. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on 28-I-1985 by the High Court. Intra-Court Appeal No. 45 of 1985 was allowed on 30-10-1988 by issuing direction to the petitioner to decide the case of the respondent afresh expeditiously, preferably within four months after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner vide its order dated 3-8-1989 rejected the claim of the respondent for payment of arrears. The respondent filed complaint before the Wafaqi Mohtasib against the decision of the petitioner. The Wafaqi Mohtasib decided the case in favour of the respondent on 2~5-1991. Review petition against this order was also dismissed by the Mohtasib vide order dated 16-9-1991. The respondent filed Writ Petition No.12695 of 1997 in the Lahore High Court for implementation of the order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib. The Lahore High Court allowed four weeks' time to the petitioner either to get stay or make payment to the respondent vide order dated 27-6-1997. Against this order, the petitioner filed C. P. No. 954/L of 1997. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 18877 or 1997 against this order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib. This writ petition was dismissed being incompetent by the Lahore High Court on 22-8-1997. Against this decision, the petitioner has filed C.P. 1045-L of 1997.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent was not entitled to get relief from the Wafaqi Mohtasib inasmuch as the petitioner rightly declined to redress his grievance as there was no legal obligation to do so. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has stated before us that representation of the petitioner against the order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib dated 2-5-1991 is still pending adjudication before the President of Pakistan. This fact was not disputed by the petitioner's learned counsel. The High Court noticed that the representation of the petitioner was pending decision. The order of the High Court is:-- "The latter states that the department made a representation against the orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib in the year 1991. The representation was prima facie barred by limitation and it was the duty of the respondents to keep a track of it. Anyhow in the ends of justice they are allowed 4 weeks' time either to secure the stay or make the payment.

2. This petition is disposed of.' The impugned order appears to be fair and proper on the face of record to meet the ends of justice. The direction having been issued by the High Court to the petitioner to pay the arrears to the respondent is fully warranted in law and facts of this case. We find that the High Court through its order dated 27-6-1997 has done substantial justice which does not at all call for interference. There is, therefore, no substance in these petitions which are dismissed by refusing leave to appeal. A.A./P-23/S Leave refused.