The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the respondents compulsory retired the petitioner from the service vide order dated 5.6.2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Service Appeal No, 2037/2002 in the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was accepted vide judgment dated 12.3.2003 but inspite of that the respondents failed to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal. The petitioner being aggrieved filed. Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents have no lawful authority not to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal. He further submits that the respondents filed report and parawise comments as directed by this Court and took a stand that respondents filed petition before the Honourable Supreme Court against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 12.3.2003 which is pending adjudication. He further submits that the judgment of the Service Tribunal has not been suspended by the Honourable Supreme Court as is depicted from the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents.
3. The learned law officer submits that the respondents filed appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court against the judgment if Service Tribunal dated 12.3.2003, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as controversy between the parties has not been finally decided upto the Apex Court. He further submits that the petitioner wants execution of the judgment of the Service Tribunal, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable:
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that direction be issued to the respondents to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal subject to the condition that in case judgment of Service Tribunal has not been suspended by the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. The preliminary objection of the learned law 'officer that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as this Court has no jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal, has no force, in view of law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:-- 'Mrs. Monawar Sanni vs. Director, Army Education." (1991 S.C.M.R. 135).
Inamul-Haq. vs. Secretary Establishment Division." (1982 Law Notes Lah. 437), "Khalid Mehmood Inspector vs. Inspector General Police." (1999 PLC
(CS) 558)
"Sardar Muhammad Arshad vs. Azat Govt. thro: Chief Secry: (1998 PLC (CS) 217).
"Farooq AHmad Khan vs. Shaukat Jan Bouch" (1998 PLC (CS) 425).
"Qazi Muhammad Anwar vs. Federation of Pakistan" (PLC 2000 C.S. 1165).
It is also settled principle of law that mere filing of the petition before the Honourable Supreme Court does not meant that the operation of the judgment of Service Tribunal has been automatically suspended. In this view of the matter, the Constitutional petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal within 3 months from today, in case judgment of the Service Tribunal has not been suspended or would not be suspended during this period. The learned law officer is directed to notify the order to respondents to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal within 3 months in terms of aforesaid direction.