2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUZAFFAR ALI, J.

Through this appeal the appellants have assailed the judgment/decree dated 20-10-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghanche, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents by setting aside the dismissal order dated 2-11-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Khaplu/Mashabrum, since the value of the suit fixed in the plaint is less than the value required under law for competency of the 2nd appeal before this Court as such this 2nd appeal is not entertainable however, the lower Courts are in divergence of views in reaching into conclusion and purely legal points have been discussed by the lower Courts in support of their contradictory conclusions, hence deem it proper to probe the matter in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction, treating the appeal as revision. The facts gave rise to the dispute between the parties are as such that the appellants appointed the respondents as Teachers in Education Department initially on contract basis but later on they were regularized in BPS-9, the orders/notifications came into effect as the respondents received their pay and other privileges as regular teachers in BPS-9, but after lapse of some time, the appellants, reversed the pay scale of the respondents from grade 9 and placed them in BPS-7 for sudden surprise of respondents and also recovered paid amount as stated in the plaints. Facing the above situation, the respondents evoked the aid of law by filing suits in the Court of learned Civil Judge concerned. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suits on point of limitation by invoking section 142(2) Specific Relief Act against the suits. The plaintiffs went into appeal against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge before the 1st appellate Court and succeeded to get the impugned decree under this revision. I have heard the learned A.A.-G and the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned A.A.-G urged that the suits filed by the plaintiffs were hopelessly time-barred as such, the dismissal order passed by the learned Civil Judge was in accordance with law and the learned 1st Appellate Court has erred in law by passing the impugned decree while the learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned decree. I have gone through both the divergent orders passed by both the learned lower Courts and I am in consonance with the legal view taken by 1st Appellate Court in the case for the reasons that (a) There is a chain of case-law, where in the higher judiciary in Pakistan including the august Supreme Court of Pakistan have laid down the well settled principle that an order or a notification once made or issued by a competent authority cannot be withdrawn or rescinded when the same takes legal effect and certain rights arc created in favour of any individual and this principle has been settled after thorough discussion of section 21 of General Clauses Act and doctrine of locus poentientiae. The latest reported judgment in this regard is 2009 SCMR page 775. (2) that since the reversion orders passed against the respondents by the petitioners are without lawful authority and without jurisdiction as such no limitation period runs to impugn the same through suit as such no point of limitation hits the suits filed by the plaintiffs as no void or an order without jurisdiction may be allowed to be operative on the pretext of limitation. Further the reversion orders against the respondents are in violation of the principle of "audi alteram partem". The up short of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment/decree of 1st Appellate Court is maintained. No orders as to cost. H.B.T./12/Glt Appeal dismissed.