Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 14 of 1969, decided on 7th April 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th November 1968, in Criminal Original No. 167 of 1967).
Arts. 123 & 98‑Writ petition against order of dismissal from service‑High Court declaring dismissal illegal-Arrears of salary not paid to re‑instated employee‑Application by him under Art. 123 for contempt proceedings Held : High Court while accepting writ petition had not issued mandamus of an absolute nature as regards arrears of salary and hence no action for contempt of Court was called for.
Saeedur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Razzaque,
Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 7th April 1969.
The petitioner was a Mechnical Cultivation Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, Government of West Pakistan. His services were terminated with effect from the 1st July 1958. Thereupon, he made a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Quetta Circuit, challenging the validity of the order terminating his services. He also sought for other reliefs in the writ petition. The writ petition succeeded and the following final order was made in that petition :‑
"We would accordingly accept the present petition with costs, set aside the order terminating the petitioner's services with effect from the 1st of July 1958 and issue a direction that the petitioner should be treated as continuing in service and being entitled to the rights, benefits and privileges pertaining to the post of Mechnical Cultivation Assistant or the equivalent post of Unit Supervisor."
The petitioner made a grievance in a petition under Article 123 of the Constitution that the respondents did not implement the above order the High Court and that Mr. Panhwar (respondent No. 3) in particular obstructed payment of his arrear salary from 14‑10‑55 as Unit Supervisor and deliberately flouted the High Court's order. Accordingly a prayer was made in that petition for punishing the respondents for contempt of the High Court.
The respondent No. 3 appeared and opposed the application under Article 123 of the Constitution. After hearing the learned counsels of both parties, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed that application. The learned Judges construed the High Court's final order in the writ petition and were of the view that the question of arrear salary of the petitioner was not before the High Court in the writ petition and no such question was decided by the High Court. Accordingly, they were of the opinion that the question of deliberate disobedience to the High Court's order by the respondents did not arise.
The present petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the High Court's order dismissing the petitioner's applica tion under Article 123 of the Constitution. Having regard to the final order made in the writ petition, it cannot be said that a mandamus of an absolute nature was issued as regards salary of the petitioner. Even then, the respondent No. 2 by his order 1 dated 26‑4‑63, sanctioned the petitioner's arrear salary amounting to Rs. 10,946'89 for the period from 14‑10‑55 to 31‑10‑62. In the circumstances, the High Court's refusal to take action against the respondents for contempt of Court does not call for our interference.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer