Find a Lawyer

(On review from the judgment and order of this Court, dated the 11th April 1968, in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1967).

---Art. 62 and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI‑Review‑Grievance that Government not inclined to give effect to decision of Supreme Court and petitioner, therefore, seeking review claiming that his individual case be decided on its own merits‑Held: Review was misconceived on such ground as the judgment was clear and unambiguous and therefore needed no further clarification merely because those charged with duty of giving effect to it chose to misinterpret or misread it.

Petitioner in person.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 10th October 1968.

‑This petition seeks the review of a judgment delivered by this Court on the 11th April 1968, in a number of appeals flied by the Government of West Pakistan and other Provincial Authorities concerned, for challenging a consolidated judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan whereby a number of writ petitions filed by employees of the Provincial Government either in the General Administration or in the Railway Department to call in question their compulsory retirement‑ from service, were allowed and the orders of retirement declared unlawful.

Special leave to appeal was granted by this Court in all these cases as questions of construction of the Constitution and certain relevant rules were raised. The appeals were heard together as common questions, of law arose for consideration and after examining the above questions of law this Court came to the conclusion that the High Court had rightly declared the orders of Government unlawful. The appeals were, therefore, dismissed with costs.

After the decision was announced in this Court the petitioner, who was a respondent in one of these appeals, submitted an application on the 12th April 1968, praying that this Court might when recording its detailed judgment also deal with each individual case before it on its own merits and decide in respect of the petitioner in particular, two questions namely, (f) that the petitioner had a legal right to the payment of salary as on duty from the date of his illegal retirement from service, and (ii) that the action against the petitioner had been taken mala fide.

As this Court, after announcing its decision, was no longer seized of the matter, the petitioner was informed, on the 16th April 1968, that he should urge his claims, if any, before the Government.

The petitioner, it appears, thereafter, issued a notice to the Government for payment of his salary' and his other financial claims' and endorsed a copy thereof to the Registry of this Court.

This was followed by other reminders to the Government again with copies endorsed to the Registry of this Court and one actually to the learned Chief ‑ Justice himself. He was again informed, on the 2nd May 1968, that there was no scope for receiving, any further communication from him on the subject of his appeal and if he persisted in sending such communications, they would be ignored.

Government has not yet, it seems, come to a decision with regard to the claims of the petitioner but the petitioner on receiving a certified copy of the judgment of this Court, applied to have the judgment reviewed on the ground that his case has not been considered on its merits and the two points mentioned by him, in particular, in his application of the 12th April 1968, had not been dealt, within the detailed judgment of this Court.

The main complaint of the petitioner, it would thus appear, is that the‑ Government is not giving effect to the decision of this Court by granting him his salary for the period he was under illegal retirement or settling his other financial claims regarding pension, etc. These are matters relating to the execution or implementation of the judgment of this Court and not grounds upon which the decision of this Court can be reviewed.

The questions on which: the petitioner is now seeking a' decision have arisen subsequently as a result of the decision of this Court and not by reason of any defect or any error in that decision.

The decision is clear and unambiguous. There is no need for any further clarification of its language just because those charged with the duty of giving effect to it choose to misinterpret or misread it. It cannot also be said that the Court had omitted to take into consideration any factor which would have materially altered the decision of this Court.

This petition for review is, therefore, wholly misconceived;

This petition is also out of time by some 3 days. This delay ha: occurred because the petitioner, following his own procedure, sent a copy of his review petition to this Court by post. It was, naturally, returned to him for filing in the appropriate Registry which was the Registry at Peshawar. This was done only on the 19th June 1968, after expiration of the period of limitation fixed for filing the review petition.

In his petition for the condonation of this delay all that has been said is that the petitioner maintains that his petition is within time but if this Court is of a different opinion, then it should condone the delay. This is hardly a petition for the grant of an indulgence by the Court.

As the petitioner is a lay man appearing in person, we are not taking any notice of the impertinent language in which his petition for the condonation of delay has been couched but we are refusing to condone the delay as there is no explanation for this delay.

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed both. as being barred by time and on merits.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.