2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Arif Raja for Petitioner, Yousaf Hussam Dilawari for Respondent. The petitioner has challenged the -vires of the order of the respondents dated 26-4-2003 through this Constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Competent Authority has constituted a Committee and the Committee has recommended the name of the petitioner vide letter' dated 3-3-2001. HP further submits that Committee constituted by the Competent Authority is high powered committee as is .evident from the letter dated 3-3-2001 attached with the writ petition as Annex-B. He further submits that petitioner has taken a stand. in para 5 of the Constitutional petition that the Competent Authority has recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization of the services of the petitioner but the respondents gave evasive reply of para. 5 In report and parawise comments and took a stand that later on it came to the notice that there were a lot of bougus declarations/certificates on the basis of which a good quality of such personnel had been regularized. He further submits that impugned order does not contain any reason.

3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the Competent Authority has considered the case of the petitioner in obedience of the direction of this Court and found that petitioner did not meet the criteria for regularization of his services under the policy framed in pursuance of the package 1996. He further submits that Competent Authority has dismissed the representation of the petitioner with reasons.

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

5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part. of the impugned order 26-4-2003 to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "The PTCL Headquarters Inspection Committee after scrutiny of your relevant record has found that you do not meet the criteria for regularization of your services under the policy framed in pursuance of Package 1996. As such, your services cannot be regularized. Hence your appeal-representation is rejected: The order itself reveals that the same was passed by the respondents without providing any proper hearing to the petitioner which is not in consonance of the order of this Court dated 8-11-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 12564 of 2003 in which respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned. It is admitted fact that respondents did not agitate the order dated 8-11-2002 before any higher A forum, therefore, same is binding between the parties in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh v. Chairman, -Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 SC 145). The impugned order as mentioned above also does not contain reasons and did not mention a single word qua the objections and grounds taken by the petitioner in his E representation, therefore, Competent Authority has decided the representation of the petitioner without applying its independent mind. In I fact the Competent Authority has countersigned the office note in the impugned order without adverting to the grounds taken by the petitioner in his representation filed by the petitioner before the respondents. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din's case (PLD 1964 SC 829). After addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the representation of their subordinates with reasons as the law C 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 C.R.BCC (1998 SCMR 2419). It is also' settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. It is also settled principle of ID law that principles of natural justice must be read in each and every statute until and unless the same is prohibited by the wording of the statute itself as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax East Pakistan v. Sayeedur Rehman (PLD 1964 SC 410). The impugned order as mentioned above itself reveals that the same was passed by the respondents without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of F law as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme-Court in the following judgments: Pakistan and others v. Public at Large (PLD 1987 SC 304). Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. v. The Enquiry Officer War Risk Insurance (1983 SC MR 1208). Zakir Ahmad's case (PLD 1965 SC 90). Even Almighty Allah has given notice to the Iblees before taking action against Iblees, therefore, principle of natural justice is read in each and every statute therefore impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside meaning thereby the representation filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the respondents. Petitioner is directed to appeal before the General Manager, respondent No.2, on 29-10-2003 at 11 a.m. who is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner preferably within two months with reasons in terms of the aforesaid direction either himself or send the same to the Competent Authority who is also directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid direction preferably within two months till -29-12-2003 after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned legal advisor of the respondents is directed to notify the order to respondent No.2 for necessary action and compliance. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. M.H./A-985/L Case remanded.