' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J---The petitioner was appointed as an Octroi Clerk in BS-5 on 22-5-1986.
He was transferred as Tax Clerk on 5-5-1988. Thereafter he was promoted as Accounts Clerk in BS- 6 on 13-4-1989. This post was upgraded as BS-7 and the same scale was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28-6-1989. This order remained unchallenged. The post was then upgraded to BS-10 vide Resolution No,6 dated 20-1-1991 but this Resolution was withdrawn on 22-4-1992 and he remained in BS-7. He was then transferred as Head Clerk on 9-6:1992 in BS.7. This post was later upgraded to BS-11 vide Resolution No,13 dated 24-12-1992 and the said scale was granted to the petitioner but later the Deputy Commissioner withdrew the higher pay scale as well as upgradation of the post. On 9-9-1993, the petitioner was transferred as Octroi Clerk by respondent No,
1. He filed an appeal against this order which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 15-2-1994. He was reverted to BS-5 on 14-4-1994. He filed a review which was partly allowed by respondent No,3 on 18-9-1994 and he was posted as Accounts Clerk in BS-7. Order was implemented on 24-12-1995.
A review application was filed by respondent No,1 which was dismissed by respondent No,3 observing that there is no provision for review under Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1969.
Thereafter respondent No,2 filed a review application which was allowed by respondent No,3 on 17- 3-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the review being a substantive right and there being no provisions for review in the said Rules, the impugned order dated 17-3-1999 (Annex.C) of respondent No,3 is without lawful authority. He relies on the cases of Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1981 SC 94), Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (2001 SCM R 1822) and Messrs Kasur Oil Mills (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division through President of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (2001 M LD 665).
3. The respondents have been duly served. The said official, present, refers to the report and parawise comments filed by respondent No,3. Respondents No,2 is represented by two learned counsel namely Kanwar Nisar Ahmad and Mian M. Aslam Mujahid, Advocates but none of them has turned up despite repeated calls. Respondent No,3 is pro forma.
4. I have gone through the copies of several documents appended with this writ petition. Now respondent No,1 has admitted all material facts in the comments and has stated that since the Octroi stand abolished it has no objection if both the parties i,e,, the petitioner and respondent No,2 keep on working in the posts being held by them. Now so far as the said contention of the learned counsel is concerned, I do find that there is no provision for review in the said Rules. Now in the said judgments being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been laid down that the right of review has to be expressly conferred by the Statute and this right is not otherwise available to a party. Needless to state that respondent No,3, in the first instance, dismissed the review application filed by respondent No,1 on the same grounds.
5. I have further noted that the impugned order dated 17-3-1999 although to the detriment of the petitioner yet it does not as well grant any benefit to respondent No,2. The plea taken by respondent No,2 was that he should be promoted to a post in BS-7. The said relief was not granted and both the persons were directed to be reverted to the Octroi cadre.
6. The impugned order being without lawful authority on its face, having been passed in exercise of powers not vesting in respondent No,3, it cannot be sustained. Writ petition accordingly is allowed.
The impugned order dated 17-3-1999 passed by respondent No,3 is declared to be without lawful authority and as such illegal and void and is set aside. It is further observed that respondent No,2 may resort to any lawful remedy available to him for the relief he seeks.
Petition allowed.