2001 SCMR 1510 (PLP)

"

5. That all these reasons carried no weight with the Railway functionaries sitting in their comfortable offices without having any regard to their subordinate serving personnel offices, without having any regard to their subordinate serving personnel clamouring for their due legal right. On one pretext or the other, the implementation of the judgment is being avoided, therefore, for the sake of securing confidence in Railway service for the subordinate staff not only for the present but also for the future generation, the petitioner finding no other alternate has approached this Hon'ble Court with the grievance that judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court is not being paid due regard, but in a further sense it has not been obeyed positively and still further the avoidance of the implementation of the judgment do demonstrate that the Railway Authorities are cultivating an idea to defeat the spirit of the judgment which judgment enshrines benefits to suppressed class of Railway subordinate officials. "In view of the foregoing submissions it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased after assessing the situation to proceed against respondents 1, 2 and 3 for not showing due regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Court dated 22‑4‑1999 in the above cited Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal and may further be pleased to punish the respondents in accordance with law for not obeying the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in letter and spirit. "

4. It was on 21‑12‑1999 that this Court passed the following order in both the petitions:‑‑ "Reply to this petition alongwith concise statement has been filed in which it has been stated that in implementation of the judgment of this Court, 10% vacancies of the post of STE were allocated and filed from Booking Clerks and other, 10% from the Goods and Parcels Clerks on their becoming available since 1962. "The case of the petitioners, according to their learned counsel, was that it was not the vacancies becoming available of the post of STE which were to be filled 10 % from Booking Clerks and‑10% from the Goods and Parcels Clerks, but 10 % even of the total posts available according to the prescribed strength of STEs were to be filled through promotion from Booking Clerks and Goods and Parcels Clerks, respectively. "Be that as it may, this question shall be decided separately. The respondent‑Railway is hereby directed to submit written statement as to what was the total strength of STE Division‑wise in the Railways and how many vacancies are available at present, Those posts which have already been filled, how many are being occupied by the Booking Clerks and the Goods and Parcels. "May be fixed in the next session of this Court at Lahore."

5. On 27‑4‑2000 the following order was passed:‑‑ "After hearing the learned counsel for parties we are prima facie convinced that General Manager (Personnel) i.e. respondent No. 1 is intentionally avoiding to implement the consent order slated 22‑4‑1999 passed by this Court in Civil Petitions No.1784‑L, 1785‑L, 1913‑L and 1914‑L of 1998 and correct facts are being concealed from the Court with the object to violate the Court order. Therefore, the General Manager (Personnel) respondent No .l has made himself liable for action for contempt of Court in view of provisions of Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore, we order that a show‑cause notice be issued to respondent No. 1 to appear and explain as to why proceedings for contempt of Court may not be initiated against him. "It is clarified that if Muhammad Aslam, General Manager (Personnel) respondent No. l is not holding the charge of post of General Manager (Personnel) then notice be served upon present incumbent General Manager (Personnel) because now it is his duty to implement in letter and spirit order of this Court. The reply of this notice shall be submitted within a period of one week after receipt of show‑cause notice. "Adjourned to a date during next session at Lahore. " It may be mentioned that on 6‑7‑2000 these matters were listed for 24‑7‑2000 as below:‑‑ "In pursuance of the order dated 27‑4‑2000 the respondents have filed their written reply. Learned counsel for the applicants are directed to submit rejoinder within a week and then the case is to be put up for hearing on 24‑7‑2000. The present incumbent of the post is not present in spite of the fact that he was directed to appear in person on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that due to some misconception the said officer could not be informed and undertook that he shall appear on the next date of hearing. "Adjourned to 24‑7‑2000. " On 24‑7‑2000 the cases were postponed for today.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the material brought on the record by them. When the attention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was drawn to the comments/written statements submitted by the respondent‑authorities to the effect that the order dated 22‑4‑1999 has in fact been complied with and that as the petitioner had failed to obtain relief from the High Court in his Writ Petition No. 16699 of 1999 on i9‑10‑1999 and as he had admittedly been promoted and has retired from service with the result that no further cause is left with him to prosecute these petitions any further, Mr. Hamid Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court submitted that as 156 vacancies had to be filled in by the respondent‑authorities and as an insignificant number of persons falling in the above 'approved‑category' had been promoted, the cause is still current and the petitioner, in spite of his retirement, can pursue these petitions with a view to advancing the cause of justice for all concerned. Mr. Shahid Saeed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the respondent‑Railways has made a reference to the relevant documents to contend that petitioner Abdul Haq Bhatti (alongwith others) was promoted in strict compliance with the judgment dated 22‑4‑1999 and, therefore, he was left with no locus to proceed with these petitions any farther. Mr. Shahid Saeed was also critical of the stance taken by the petitioner to the effect that he can pursue the cause on behalf of those unnumbered employees of the Pakistan Railways who were entitled to be treated by the latter in accordance with the consent‑order dated 22‑4‑1999. His precise plea was that none of those who are alleged by the petitioner to have a right to seek their promotion by respondent‑Railways between the years 1962/1965 to‑date, has raised any objection whatsoever in that behalf and that the petitioner himself cannot be heard 'complaining' on their behalf and that too without any authority from them.

7. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and also carefully perused the material available on the record generally and the stance taken by the respondent‑authorities that they have meticulously implemented the consent order dated 22‑4‑1999 with the result that allegation to the contrary and that too by petitioner Abdul Haq Bhatti who has since retired from service and is sans any authorisation from them, in particular. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent‑authorities that petitioner‑Abdul Haq Bhatti has no locus standi to pursue the cause of those unspecified persons/employees of the respondent Railways who have themselves not even so much as raised their little finger for either the alleged failure of the respondent‑authorities to implement the judgment dated 22‑4‑1999 or even for denying them any right of promotion in terms of the said judgment. The concern expressed on their behalf by the petitioner regarding implementation of this Court's judgment dated 22‑4‑1999 by the respondent‑Railways may be very laudable indeed but we hasten to add that such understanding of the petitioner cannot clothe him with any locus whatsoever either to commence or continue the above Criminal Originals No.8‑L of 1999 and 31‑L of 1999. Viewed in this perspective, the petitioner can be equated with a person pro bono publico for the purposes of these proceedings. Moreso, when his promotion has come about and he has also retired from service with the result that nothing is left with him to be urged in support of his own personal grievance, if any.

8. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that any one of the employees similar placed as him has constituted him as his attorney for taking out any proceedings whatsoever against the respondent‑authorities in the matter of the latter's alleged failure to implement the above‑judgment of this Court dated 22‑4‑1999.

9. Looked at from whatever angle, the instant petitions cannot proceed 'any further at the instance of the petitioner who has neither any genuine complaint to make to his own extent in relation to the implementation of this Court's order dated 22‑4‑1999 nor is even in a position to show that he has been constituted as an Attorney of sorts by one person or any number of such persons who have allegedly not received a lawful treatment to their case/s promotion in terms of this Court order dated 22‑4‑1999.

10. The above are the reasons for our short order dated 25‑7‑2000 which reads thus; "For reasons to be recorded later, the above Criminal Originals are dismissed as;‑‑ (i) the petitioner‑Abdul Haq Bhatti already stood promoted in terms of this Court's order dated 22‑4‑1999 in Civil Petitions Nos.1784‑L, 1785‑L, 1913‑L and 1914‑L of 1998 and not left with any locus to make the present Criminal Originals seeking contempt‑proceedings against the respondents‑General Manager, Divisional Superintendent and Divisional Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways as also General Manager (Personnel), Regional Manager 'PBU' and Regional Operating Manager 'PBU', Lahore for their alleged failure to implement the order dated 22‑4‑1999 and (11) any other employee similarly placed as the petitioner, who considers himself entitled to any indulgence from the respondent‑Railways in terms of order dated 22‑4‑1999, may take up the matter with the respondent‑Railways in that behalf by making a demand for justice on available grounds and, only on their refusal, resort to other available remedies against them." N.H.Q./A‑143/S Petition dismissed.