2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

1996 SCMR 1185 ref. Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2002. Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks his reinstatement with a direction to the respondents to allow him to join the duty and for the implementation of the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal is dated 31-10-2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as PTC Teacher vide order dated 31-12-1995 and was posted at Government Primary School Dogranwali Tehsil Pasrur District Sialkot. Vide order dated 20-8-1999 respondent No.3 cancelled the appointments of 113 teachers and the petitioner was at Serial No.89 of the said list. It is claimed that the procedure before the termination order was passed, was not adopted and the order was passed without issuance of show-cause notice. The petitioner did not tile any appeal while the others tiled appeals before the Service Tribunal and the appeals of the other terminated employees were accepted vide judgment dated 31-10-2001 with the direction that the appellants be reinstated in service and the intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due. The de novo proceedings are ordered. The petitioner after coming to know about the decision of the appeal tiled an application for his reinstatement by relying upon Hamid Akhtar Niazi's case reported in " 1996 SCMR Page 1185". In the meantime respondent No. 1 by relying upon the said judgment has also directed the concerned authorities to implement the judgment in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment which has been given to the other similarly placed employees. The petitioner though had not filed the appeal yet is entitled to the same treatment which has been given by the Punjab Service Tribunal to the other employees and he cannot be discriminated. It is further contended that the Supreme Court's judgment is binding on all the authorities.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Admittedly the petitioner was terminated in the year 1999, who never filed any representation nor filed any appeal before the Service Tribunal and his matter has attained finality to the extent of his termination. The order against the other teachers whose services were terminated has been held illegal by the Service Tribunal and the appeal has been accepted. Each case has on its own merits and it cannot be said that the petitioner's case is at par with the case of the appellants who had sought the relief from the Competent forum. This Court cannot entertain the petition against the termination order' of a civil servant and cannot direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service of a civet servant. The petitioner if was aggrieved should have filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and having not filed any appeal before the Service Tribunal he is the only person who will suffer for the same.

5. This petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./K-164/L Petition dismissed.