2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Shamas-ur-Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th March, 2002. Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation (Defunct) through its Administrator has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated 30-10-2000 passed by respondent No.2, the Provincial Ombudsman and the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, the worthy Governor of the Punjab dated 15-10-2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 joined Finance Department of the Government of the Punjab, as Junior Clerk on 14-7-1968: In October, 1973 the Government of the Punjab floated new Corporation. The Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation (PAD & SC) (which is Defunct now since 11-4-1998) as Statutory body. At learning about the newly-born Corporation, he preferred to join it and he applied for the post of Assistant. His application was accepted and he was appointed as Assistant vide order dated 19-11-1973 in the basic scale of Rs.250-18-340/20.540. In compliance of the above said appointment respondent No.1 joined the petitioner-Corporation. Respondent No. 1 was promoted as Assistant Manager Basic Pay Scale No. 16 on 18th of March, 1976. Respondent No. 1 remained silent from 27-11-1973 to 17-1-1977 when he for the first time requested for counting of previous service towards the Pension/Gratuity. The request was turned down by the Corporation vide letter dated 24-2-1977 and that letter attained the finality as the letter was not challenged before any other forum whereas the respondent No. 1 could file departmental appeal within 30 days, but be kept silent till 6-3-2000, when the Corporation was already dissolved on 1-4-1998. Respondent No. 1 made request to the Administrator of the (Defunct) Corporation for considering his previous, service, after lapse of 23 years and after two years of dissolution of the Corporation, hence the request was turned down.

3. It will, be relevant to point out that respondent No.1, has already received the Golden Hand Shake Scheme and terminal benefits. Respondent No.1, filed complaint against the Corporation before the Provincial Ombudsman, who, ignored all the legal objections raised by the petitioner and passed the order against the Corporation on 30-10-2000. The Corporation filed representation on 22-11-2000, which was dismissed by the Governor on 15-10-2001.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 1's was public servant as defined in section 2(6) and the petitioner Corporation is 'Agency' as defined in section 2(1) of the Punjab office of the Ombudsman Act. 1997, which clearly bars the jurisdiction of the I Provincial Ombudsman to entertain the complaint of public servant against the agency in respect of personal grievance. He has relied upon two judgments passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10376 of 2001 and. Writ Petition No. 20772 of 2001, in which the orders of Ombudsman and Governor were set aside as Provincial Ombudsman was declared to have no jurisdiction to entertain the matters relating to public servant against the agency.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has opposed this writ petition on the ground that in the cases of some of the employees, direction of Provincial Ombudsman has been accepted by the petitioner and no other case has been filed. The discriminatory treatment is being given to respondent No.

1. The petitioner cannot pick and choose the orders for compliance and cannot raise the objections by filing writ petition as is done in the case of respondent No. 1, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with this writ petition. In Writ Petition No. 10376 of 2001 and Writ Petition No.20772 of 2001, already all the points have been discussed and it has been held by this Court that the employees of the Defunct Corporation of the petitioner are public servants as definer in section 2(6) and the petitioner-Corporation is Agency as defined in section 2(1) of the Punjab Office of the Ordinance, 1997, hence, the Provincial Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and to pass the orders, hence, the orders on the face of it are without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and against the statutory provisions of law, thus, in view of the above referred judgments in which the reasons have been given by this-Court, this petition is also accepted and impugned orders are set aside. H.B.T./P-153/L Petition accepted.