1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Order of promotion‑‑‑Implementation of‑‑‑Employee was found entitled to be considered for promotion and Authority was directed to consider his case within specified period in an earlier Constitutional petition‑‑‑Authority having failed to consider the case of petitioner within specified period, employee had sought implementation of order by filing another Constitutional petition‑‑ Controversy involved between parties having already been resolved, Authorities concerned were directed to implement judgment of Court at the earliest. Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A: G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1992. The petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad has filed this Constitutional petition before this Court requesting for issuance of a direction to the respondents for implementation of the order having been passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Gul Muhammad Khan in Writ Petition No.7291‑S of 1979 on 22‑1‑1980. The order of his Lordship is reproduced below: ‑. "It is stated by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General under instructions of Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Under, Secretary, that though the present rules govern the case of the petitioner, yet an objection has been raised by the Finance Department that the qualifications of the incumbents be raised to M.Sc. in view of the raise in the pay. He, however, states that no new rules have been made and no amendment issued by the competent authority so far, with regard to raising of the qualification. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules as they exist now and cannot be asked to wait for a particular amendment which may or may not be made by the competent authority. In this view of the legal situation, learned Assistant Advocate‑General states that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the competent authority within six months. In view of the above situation, no further action is required in this matter and the same is disposed of as such."

2. The grievance of the learned counsel is that the aforesaid order was not implemented by the respondents‑functionaries despite the expiry of considerable period of time. Learned Law Officer was unable to say anything contrary to the request having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The controversy involved between the parties was resolved by this Court in the aforesaid order. In this view of the matter, there is no option but to direct the respondents to implement the said judgment of his Lordship. The needful shall be done by the Government‑functionaries within next two weeks as requested by the learned counsel for the parties. With these remarks, the petition succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1363/L Petition allowed.