2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Rana A. Hameed Talib for Petitioners. Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General of Pakistan. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No. 1893 of 1997, which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 7‑6‑1999 on the statement of the counsel of the respondents in the following term:‑‑ "The letter states that in view of the ban the petitioners are not being regularized. However, it is undertaken that this is selection post and the moment ban is lifted, the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law and rules." The petitioners filed Intro‑Court Appeal No. 559 of 1999, which was also disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 26‑7‑1999 on the ground that "the matter being sub judice no action detrimental should be taken against the appellants". The respondents directed the petitioners to appear in the written examination after lifting the ban. The petitioners appeared in the test and passed the same, The case of the petitioners was sent by the respondents to the competent authority for relaxation of age limit. The competent authority refused to relax the same. The petitioners being aggrieved filed representation before the higher authorities. The respondents did, not decide the representation of the petitioners till date as is evident from the letter attached with the parawise comments by the respondents, dated 13th November, 2002 written by the Chief Welfare Officer to the Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are serving the Department since long when the petitioners were, inducted, they were not over‑aged but the competent authority did not consider this aspect of the case at the time of deciding issue in question regarding relaxation of the age limit in case of the petitioners. He further submits that competent authority did not consider the under taking made by the Standing counsel before this Court in the earlier round of litigation. He further urges that the respondents are duty bound to decide their representation within reasonable time as is, envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24‑A in the General Clauses Act.

3. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General submits that Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 read with section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act. He further submits that writ petition is premature as the representation of the petitioners is still pending adjudication before the competent authority.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. It is admitted fact that petitioners have filed representations before the competent authority, which are pending adjudication in view of the letter of the Chief Welfare Officer, dated 13‑11‑2002 attached with the report and parawise comments addressed to the Deputy‑ Attorney‑General for Pakistan, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Tanbeer Ahmed Siddiky's case (PLD.1968 SC 185). It is admitted fact in view of the report and parawise comments read with the said letter that the representation is still pending adjudication before the competent authority. This Court has ample jurisdiction to give directions to the competent authority to act to accordance with law in view of Article 4 of the Constitution while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, in spite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the‑ Service Tribunal Act, as per law laid down in "H.M. Rizvi's case" (PLD 1981 SG 612) and "province of Sindh. v. Gul Muhammad Hanjane's case (2003 SCMR 325). Respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law preferably within two months after receiving the order of this Court. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Director‑General, Establishment Division, Islamabad in his office at 11‑00 a.m. on 30‑1‑2003 who is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners with reasons strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24‑A in the General Clauses Act as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the following judgments:‑‑ Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager Karachi. (1998 SCMR 2268); Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer CRBC WAPDA (1998 SCMR 2419). , Petitioners are directed to appear before the Director‑General, Establishment Division, Islamabad who is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law preferably within two months till 30‑3‑2004 in terms of the afore said direction either himself or send the same to the competent authority, who is also directed to decide the representation of the petitioners strictly, in accordance with law preferably within two months till 30‑3-2004 in terms of the aforesaid direction. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court within the stipulated period. Learned counsel of the petitioners is directed to hand over copy of the writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan, who is directed to send the same to the Director‑General for necessary action and compliance. The representative of the respondents is directed to notify the order to the Director‑General for necessary action and compliance. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. M.A.W./M‑32/L Order accordingly.