' The petitioner was employed in the National Bank of Pakistan and vide order dated 5-10-1978, was promoted as Senior Grade-I Officer and designated as Assistant Vice-President w.e.f. 1-7-1978; subsequently, the order of promotion was cancelled on 19-3-1979, constraining the petitioner to file Writ Petition No.2478 of 1980, which Was accepted by this Court on 22-12-1980; the judgment of this Court was challenged by the respondents through ICA No.78 of 1981, which was dismissed on 12-5- 1981. Though the leave was granted to the respondents, but ultimately C.A. No.78 of 1981 was dismissed on 5-2-1985 by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the meantime, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 28-5-1983 and was sent on LPR; his date of retirement was 16-4-1984. The petitioner challenged this order through another Writ Petition No.1540 of 1984, which was dismissed by this Court on 9-7-1984; ICA No.183 of 1984 against the above order was also dismissed on 5-3-1998 and the C.P. No.1175 of 1998, filed by the petitioner before the Honourable Supreme Court, was withdrawn on 23-11-2000.
2. There is another intervening development in the matter that, the petitioner on 12-12-1981 brought the present Writ Petition No.5845 of 1981 seeking the implementation of the judgment of this Court dated 22-12-1980, passed in his favour in Writ Petition No.2478 of 1980. The prayer of the writ petitioner reads as follows:-- "In the circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the respondents be kindly directed to act in accordance with law and to implement the order of this Honourable Court dated 22-12-1980.
' It is further prayed that respondents be directed to reimburse the petitioner to the extent of salaries, allowances and benefits available to him in consequence of the order of this Honourable Court."
' However, before the institution of this writ petition, the Ationer had earlier filed a Crl. Org. No.109-W of 1981, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18-5-1981, holding the same to be incompetent. Anyhow, this writ petition, when came up for hearing on 5-6-1998, none represented the respondents and the petition was converted into civil miscellaneous and was disposed of through the judgment announced on 11-6-1998, whereby the application was allowed, which means that virtually the writ petition was accepted. This judgment was challenged by the respondents by moving an application under section 12(2) C.P.C., which was dismissed and against this order, the respondents preferred C.P.L.A. No.1426 of 2001 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was accepted and the case has been remanded back on 12-11-2002, hence today the. Writ Petition No.5845 of 1981 is being decided on its own merits.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that, because of the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 16-4-1984, virtually, the writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioner could not be now reinstated to the position, which he was entitled to hold on account of the above dated 22-12-1980. But at the same time, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the fruits of the said order, because this order, unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents, remained intact and thus, on the basis of the said order, the petitioner is entitled to whatever financial benefits, he could have earned as being Assistant Vice-President or even if, promoted according to his seniority etc. However, when confronted. Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents states that, in fact the order dated 22-12-1980 was implemented and the petitioner, as per his prayer in the writ petition, has been given all the salaries, allowances and financial benefits, which he was entitled as Assistant Vice-President. In this behalf, reference has been made to the statement of accounts of the respondent-Bank and certain amount, which was credited in the account of the petitioner.
5. Be that as it may, in the changed circumstances, now the petitioner cannot be put back to the position of acting as Assistant Vice-President, because he admittedly has attained the age of superannuation. II The questions, whether he has been given the full financial benefits on account of the order dated 22-12-1980, and if not, what is the exact amount due to him, are the issues of fact and needs inquiry, which task cannot be undertaken in the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.
Thus, if the petitioner still is aggrieved that, he has not been paid his full amounts due to him under the first order of this Court, he may, if so advised, approach the appropriate forum. The question of limitation, if raised by the respondents in such proceedings, which are filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, taking cognizance of the matter, shall consider such question in the light of the pendency of the present writ petition and the time consumed therein.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.