2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J

In view of the detailed reply ' received from the respondent, I have reconsidered the matter after summoning the original file of Writ Petition No.4899/1984, which gave rise to this contempt matter. Writ Petition No.4899/1984 was instituted by the petitioner with the prayer that "the respondents may very kindly be directed to confirm the petitioner in Grade/Pay Scale of Rs.220-15-325/15-400 and he be given NPS 15 in the name of Justice, Fairness and precedents." It was allowed with no order as to costs vide order in Writ Petition No.4898/1984. The reference case had been filed by one Ehasanul Haque. The said judgment was not assailed any further. C. M. No.162/ 1986 was then filed by the petitioner for seeking the implementation of the judgment as also C. M. No.1185/ 1986. Report was obtained from the department to the same and ultimately order dated 18-10-1988 was passed, which reads as under:

"Report has been submitted under the signatures of the Secretary, Punjab Local Government Board and it is also stated by the Officer that the petitioner will be treated the same way as Ehasan-ul-Haq whose earlier Writ Petition No.1985/S/1973 had been accepted, It is however pointed out by the Officer that Grade-15 which Ehasan-ul-Haq was given that was wrong and when it was withdrawn he filed Writ Petition No.680/1987. Whatever the decision in the letter Writ Petition (W . P. No.680/ 1987) would be the same would be applied to the petitioner. In view of the report and statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the petitioners is treated? the same way as Ehasan-ul-Haq and whatever Ehasan-ul-Haq is found entitled to, the petitioner should also be given the same grade from the same date as given to him, he would withdraw the application. In view of the above, this application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be given the same grade from the same date as is finally allowed to Ehasan-ul-Haq. The parties shall bear their own costs." There is thus no obscurity or doubt left that the petitioner is to be treated like Ehsan-ul-Haq and same treatment is to be given to him as was given to said Ehsan-ul-Haq in terms of the above judgment. The justification now sought to be advanced for non-compliance of the abovementioned judgment hardly holds any ground and foundation. The respondents who are successors in office of the said respondents in the writ petition are bound to implement and comply with judgment of the court in letter and spirit. Failing which punitive action as contemplated by law may entail. Let therefore, the needful be done within two months in order to avoid any further litigation and complication in the matter. The petition is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./M-48/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.