2004 PLP 1014 (YLR)

(e) That the orders of Division Bench in Intra-Court Appeal No. 190 of 1991 and in Intra-Court Appeal No.551 of 1997 (filed by the employees of the Punjab Textbook Board and that of the B.I.S.E. respectively) being judicial precedences/case-laws, have overriding effect own any executive order/policy decision etc. (f) Following the judgment dated 1-12-1997 of the D.B. in I.C.A. No.55197 (filed by the employees of the B.I.S.E.) the employees of Punjab Board Technical Education, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, were also allowed house rent on running nay. (g) That the Board has its own sources of income and there is no need of any grant from the Government. An approximate amount of rupees fifty six lacs and fifty thousand is required to meet the expenditure of the house rent allowance, from the date the same was freezed, be re appropriated in the current financia4 year. In view of the position explained above, the case is submitted to the Board of Directors with the request to accord approval to grant the house rent allowance to the employees of the Board at the rate of 45% of their basic pay/running pay w.e.f. 1-6-1994." He further submits that the respondents have no lawful authority to refuse the claim of the petitioner in violation of law laid down by this Court qua employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in Intro-Court Appeal No.551 of 1997, which was decided or. 1-12-1997. He further submits that the respondents granted said relief to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition vide order dated 27-12-2002. Subsequently, the respondent-Board has recalled the order dated 27-12-2002 vide order dated 16-4-2003, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent Board. The respondent-Board has no lawful authority to wriggle out from this position. He further submits that the Government has no power to interfere in the function of the Punjab Textbook Board as the Punjab Textbook Board is a creation of statute. He further submits that the Board is the competent to regulate its funds in view of letter dated 27-8-2003 of the Government Finance Punjab. He further submits that as the employees of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and employees of the Punjab Textbook Board, are performing similar functions and duties and the same are regulated by the similar provision of law as is highlighted by the comparison of sections 4, 5, 11 and 15 of Punjab Textbook Board with sections 10 and 11 of Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, 1976, therefore, the action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Paki. Petroleum Workers Union v. Ministry of Interior and others" 1991 CLC 13. "Shrin Munir and others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Health" PLD 1990 SC 295. "Government of Punjab through Secretary Health and others v. Naila Begum" PLD 1987 Lahore 336 He further submits that the respondent Board has allowed one relief to the petitioner in view of order dated 28-6-1997; therefore, the respondent has no lawful authority to refuse the second relief with regard to the house rent to the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order does not contain any reason and basis therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. .

4. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner ha filed this writ petition in the representative capacity in violation of mandatory provision of Order I, rule 8, C.P.C., therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: -- "Datari Construction Co. Ltd. v. A. Razaq Adamjee and others" 1995 CLC 846 "Anisur Rehman v. Government of Sindh and others" 1997 CLC 615 "Nazir Ahmad v. Faisalabad Development Authority" 2003 CLC 359 He further submits that the employees of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education are governed by the provisions of Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976; whereas employees of respondent-Board are governed by the Punjab Textbook Board Act, 1962 as amended vide Act V of 1971, therefore, the judgment rendered by this Court qua the employees of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is not a judgment in rem but is judgment in personam, therefore, the judgment of this Court is not binding upon the Punjab Textbook Board. He further submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the well known principle of laches as cause of action accrued to the petitioner in July, 1991 as the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition in May, 1999. He further submits that the Punjab Textbook Board adopted the Punjab Civil Servant Rules by revision of Pay Rules, 1997, therefore, the judgment rendered by this Court qua the employees of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, has no relevancy to resolve the present controversy. He further submits that the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable.

5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner as mentioned above, filed petition on behalf of association of all the employees of the Board which mentioned in the contents of the writ petition as is evident from Para. No. 1 of the Constitutional petition, therefore, the Constitutional petition is maintainable and has not been filed by the petitioner in violation of mandatory provisions of Order I, rule 8, C.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied upon "Malik Muhammad Ismail and others v. Settlement Commissioner and another" 1992 CLC 282.

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

7. Without adverting to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties, it is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- (i) The petitioner submitted an application before the Punjab Textbook Board for grant of allowance in question, which was rejected by the Board in its meeting held on 1-12-1998 vide Item No.2. (ii) The petitioner being aggrieved filed a joint representation before the Board, which was also rejected vide order dated 9-2-1999. It is pertinent to mention here that then petitioner has challenged the vires of the aforesaid order in Constitutional petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents accepted the demand of the petitioner vide order dated 27-12-2002. The said order dated 27-12-2002 has been recalled by the Board vide order dated A 16-4-2003. Respondents placed on record orders dated ,27-12-2002 and 16-4-2003 through Civil Miscellaneous No.1 of 2003 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 22-9-2003. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time B of deciding the Constitutional petition, as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of Karachi High Court and by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Nasir Jamal v. Mst. Zubaida Begum" 1990 CLC 1069 "Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehr Ghulam Dastgir" PLD 1978 SC

220. It is admitted fact as mentioned above, the relief was granted to the petitioner by the Board vide order dated 27-12-2002, which was subsequently recalled vide order dated 16-4-2003. The petitioner has not C challenged the vires of order dated 16-4-2003 before the competent forum/competent Court till date in spite of the fact that it was brought in the notice of the petitioner on 29-9-2003. In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is well within its right to challenge the impugned order dated 16-4-2003 before the competent form/ competent Court. S.A.K./P-168/L Petition dismissed.