' Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed as a Crop Reporter by respondent No.2 vide appointment letter dated 3-9-1978 as is evident from annexure-A attached with the writ petition, Subsequently, the petitioner was selected/appointed as Junior Plant Attendant in the Ravi Rayon Ltd., for which he had applied through proper channel and he was relieved by his parent department vide letter dated 15-5-1990 and his lien was also retained in the parent department as is evident from Annexure-B attached with the writ petition. The administration of Ravi Rayon Limited on account of loss had decided to close it down and its employees were given option to apply for golden hand shake/voluntarily separation scheme. The petitioner submitted an application for the same in terms of aforesaid scheme, which was accepted by the Administration of Ravi Rayon Limited, vide letter dated 30-9-1997 as is evident from annexure-C attached with the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondents to allow him to re-join the services of the respondents as lien of the petitioner was not terminated, which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 6-3- 2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondents is not in accordance with law laid down by the Superior Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon "Syed Sajjad Hussain v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others, (1996 SCMR 284) and Sajjad Hussain and others v. Governor of the Punjab, Lahore and others (2000 SCMR 657). He further submits that in the aforesaid judgments, the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the principle that lien of a permanent civil servant cannot be terminated, even with his own consent and the same can be terminated only when a civil servant is confirmed against some other permanent post.
3. The learned law officer submits that the petitioner voluntarily left the department for better future and department allowed him to join service in Ravi Rayon Limited. The petitioner secured benefits of Golden Hand Shake Scheme from Ravi Rayon Ltd, therefore, he ceased to remain in the active service, therefore, he cannot claim the lien and cannot take his back-benefits from the respondents. He further submits that the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner, are distinguished on facts and law. He further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of parties and perused the record.
5. The matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner, who is admittedly a civil servant and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Constitutional petition in view of bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, as per principle laid down by the Honourable IA Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (PLD 1980 SC 22)
"Abdul Wahab Khan v. Government of Punjab and others." (PLD 1989 SC 508)
"United Bank Ltd. v. Shamim Ahmad Khan and others" (PLD 1999 SC 990)
"Muzaffar Hussain v. Superintendent of Police Sialkot" (2002 PLC (C.S.) 442)
' It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its peculiar circumstances. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not attracted in the present case. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The case of Syed Sajjad Hussain supra (2000 SCMR 657) relied by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as Syed Sajjad Hussain and others were workers in the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, therefore, the question of maintainability in view of Article 212 of the Constitution was not raised and decided. Similarly, case of Syed Sajjad Hussain (supra) (1996 SCMR 284) is also distinguished on facts and law as the case of Syed Sajjad Hussain arises out of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal as is evident from para. 3 at page 288, therefore, the cited case did not support the cause of the petitioner qua maintainability of the Constitutional petition. The petitioner is well within his right to avail proper remedy under the law before the competent forum/competent authority.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.