Find a Lawyer

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 62 ‑ Review ‑ Appeal dismissed on ground of laches‑Matters urged at review stage not placed before Court before its judgment was written and announced Petition for review dismissed,

Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd February 1968.

CORNELIUS, C. J.‑

The petitioner seeks review of this Court's order of the 11th July 1967, dismissing his appeal against the refusal to him by the High Court of a writ in a matter of service complaint, viz., denial to him of promotion as well as the scale of pay in the higher post. His grievance dated back to the year 1952, when he as an "A" Grade Clerk was approved for appoint ment as an Assistant. His complaint was that he was denied the benefit of a rule made by the Governor‑General in 1949 to the effect that 'A' Grade Clerks, after being so approved were to be "treated as if they have been promoted to the scale prescribed for Assistants and their pay fixed at the next stage above their present pay, from 1st January 1949".

In the judgment of this Court, it was said that "on the merits, the appellant had a case for consideration" i.e., having regard to all the relevant rules, instructions and circumstances, he appeared to be "entitled to be fixed in the Assistant's grade without occupying an Assistant grade post . . . . . in view of having been approved for promotion," under the rule cited above. But it was held that his writ petition, filed in 1962 was very much belated, and the explanation that he had been making repeated representations to his departmental authorities against the treatment accorded to him was not adequate. It was added that "to interfere in 1967 with the Government orders passed in 1955 and 1957, will certainly cause a serious upset in the arrange ments made in the intervening long period of time and create a disturbance which may not be repairable."

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, but it was said at the same time that "it will be open to Government to re‑consider the case of the appellant in the light of the interpretation given by this Court".

In his petition for review, the petitioner seeks re consideration of the finding of laches against him, and cites a letter from his superior authority addressed to himself to the effect that "there will be no difficulty in reconstituting the list of confirmation later on the authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court," and further "in case a favourable decision is given by the Court, he would accordingly be assigned appropriate seniority due to him on the seniority roll" He cites also a circular issued by the same authority to the effect that "the Ministry of Defence are awaiting judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mr. Wasi Ahmed Rizvi, Assistant, Naval Headquarters, for a few weeks more before finalising the question of confirmation of Assistants".

If these matters had been placed before the Court before its judgment was written and announced, the point of laches would have lost some of its importance, in view of the absence of any danger of upsetting existing arrangements of ten or twelve years'‑duration. In that case, the Court may well have allowed the appeal, and issued the order prayed for, i.e., an order requiring that in view of his having been approved for promotion as Assistant in 1952, the petitioner became entitled to be treated as if he had been promoted to the scale prescribed for Assistants, and to have his pay fixed at the next stage above his present nay, with effect from 1st January 1949, under rule 8 of the relevant Rules, viz., the Central (Non‑Gazetted) Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1949. A finding to that effect has been given in this Court's judgment, and it only remains for the authorities, in view of the admitted lack of any inconvenience in giving effect to this finding to carry out the intention of this Court's observation that it is "open to Government to re‑consider the case of the appellant in the light of the interpretation given by this Court".

With these observations, this petition for review is hereby 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.