2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Asmat Kamal Khan, for Respondents Nos. 10 and

12. Mian Muzaffar Hussain and Rehan Bashir for LDA. Date of hearing: 25th November, 2003. At the very outset of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the respondents have with reference to Regulation No.23 of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978, pointed out that in view of the remedy available to the petitioners in the nature of representation before the higher authority, the writ petition is not maintainable.

2. The Learned counsel for the parties have been ‑heard in this context. The petitioners considering themselves to be eligible for promotion as Assistant Director (General Cadre) BS‑17 and aggrieved of recommendations qua Respondents No.8 to 13 for their promotion to the said post had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court praying that "office orders (Annex. C to G), the acts of Respondents Nos.3 to 7 of ignoring the petitioners for promotion as Assistant Director (General Cadre) BS‑1.7 and on the contrary, considering and recommending the cases of Respondents Nos.8 to 13 for their promotion as Assistant Director (General Cadre) BS‑17 may graciously be, declared as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, for ulterior motives, without; jurisdiction and without lawful authority, consequently of no legal, effect and it may further be declared that under the Regulations, 1978 only Staff Officers BS‑16, are eligible for promotion as Assistant Director (General Cadre) BS‑17.. The Respondent No.2 may be restrained from issuing promotion orders in respect of. Respondents Nos.8, to

13. The Respondents Nos. l, to 7 may be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners and other eligible Staff Officers BS‑16 for their promotion as Assistant Director (General Cadre) BS‑17, against vacant posts to be filled by promotion from amongst, Staff Officers to the extent of 50 % quota."

3. This petition was filed on 3‑7‑2002 ,and was fixed for hearing before the Court on 4‑7‑2003 When report and parawise comments, were called from Respondent No.

1. Since there was no restraint order passed by the Court promotion order dated 13‑8'‑2002 of Respondents Nos.8, 9, 10 and 12 to 13 was issued. As is evident from the contents of the petition and the prayer made therein reproduced above, the Lahore Development. Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service). Regulation 1978, have been invoked by the petitioners, whereas Regulation No.23(2) has been pressed into service by the respondents which reads as under:‑‑ "23(2) Where no provision for appeal or review exists in respect of any order under these Regulations, or the rules mentioned in Regulation 22, an employee aggrieved by any such order may except where such order is made by the .Chairman, make a representation against it to the authority next above the authority which trade the order."

4. Thus remedy of representation is available to the petitioners for the redressal of their grievance: The learned counsel for the parties are atone that in the context of the controversy, such representation would lie before the Chairman. In view of the above, when there is‑an adequate departmental remedy available to the petitioners', petition before this Court is not maintainable. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that such representations are not decided by the departmental Authorities for long time, therefore, some period may be indicated for decision of the representation.' Suffice it to observe that there is a limitation of 90 days for decision of representations of civil servants provided by the relevant laws. Although there is no such limitation provided in the' Regulations ibid of the Authority, yet it is: considered just and proper that the departmental Authority would in this context dispose of the representation of the petitioners within 90 days of the filing thereof. The petition is disposed of with the above observation. H.B.TM‑101/L Order accordingly