Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QURESHI VS Respondent: Mst. SAIRA JABEENHonorable Justice IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRYMuhammad Rashid Ahmed,Pervaiz I. Mir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Hanif Zahid
2005 S C M R 1685
2005 S C M R 1685
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QURESHI and another---Petitioners
Versus
Mst. SAIRA JABEEN---Respondent
Civil Petitions Nos.315-L to 321-L of 2004, decided on 8th July, 2004.
(On appeal against the judgment, dated 12-4-2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Originals Nos.700-W to 706-W of 2002).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Arts. 199 & 204---Contempt proceedings for non-compliance of order passed in Constitutional petition---Relief not granted earlier to petitioner by High Court could not be granted by it in contempt proceedings---Principle illustrated.
Muhammad Rashid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Pervaiz I. Mir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Hanif Zahid, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th July, 2004.
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.----Above noted petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12th April, 2004. Concluding para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:---
"All these criminal originals accordingly are disposed of with direction to the respondents to move in the matter expeditiously and to take steps to regularize appointments of petitioners as directed in the judgment, dated 12-3-2002 as also judgment of this Court delivered by a Division Bench, inter ilia, in I.C.A. 856 of 2000."
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that the respondents-School Teachers instituted writ petitions before the Lahore High Court, Lahore for redressal of their grievance to the effect that they are not being considered for grant of BS-16 whereas several other teachers who are not even B.Ed. have been granted said scale. These writ petitions were disposed of on 12th Match, 2002 with the direction that copies of all these writ petitions be sent to the Director-General, L.D.A. as well as respondent No.2 who shall consider the cases of the respondents for grant of BS-16 with reference to their qualification, Rules on the subject and also grant of the same to other similar placed teachers/employees. But the order of the High Court dated 12th March, 2002 was not complied with within the stipulated period of six weeks, therefore, respondents instituted contempt proceedings. No action of contempt of Court was initiated against the then Director-General, L.D.A. by the learned High Court in view of the fact that the respondents have been allowed to draw salaries equal to BS-16 on work-charged basis. However, in pursuance of previous order dated 12th March, 2002 added observations were made vide impugned judgment whereby directions were made to the Director-General, L.D.A to regularize, them. Relevant .para. from the impugned judgment has been reproduced hereinabove. Against which petitions for leave to appeal have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in terms of order dated 12th March, 2002 the learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 12th March, 2004 while disposing of contempt proceedings had no jurisdiction to grant relief to the respondents which was not granted to them earlier.
4. It may be noted that previously vide order dated 12th March, 2002 directions were made to the L.D.A. by the learned High Court only to grant BS-16 to the respondents subject to their qualification and rules on the subject and no relief of regularization of the respondents in service was allowed and for such reason learned Single Judge in Chambers of High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners for their regularization in service while disposing of contempt proceedings.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons petitions are converted into appeals and allowed to the extent that petitioners department shall not be bound to regularize the respondents in terms of impugned judgment. However, it may consider independently for their regularization in service in accordance with rules on the subject. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
S.A.K./M-157/S Appeals accepted.