' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- The petitioner was appointed as Tube-well operator and his appointment letter was withdrawn which was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No,8215 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed vide order, dated 10-1-2005 and the order of the D.C.O. Was declared to be unlawful and of no legal effect. The petitioner after his reinstatement, through the instant petition, seeks a direction for payment of salary for the period during which he was out of service i,e, 17-1-2005 to 15-3-2006.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner moved an application to the Nazim Union Council for payment of the arrears of salary from 17-1-2005 to 15-3-2006 the period during which he remained out of service on the account of order of the D.C.O. The Nazim, Union Council forwarded the matter to E.D.O. Finance for clarification. The petitioner also moved to the District Coordination Officer, who forwarded the same to the Tehsil Municipal Officer, who sent the file to the Nazim, Union Council for disposal of the application in the light of order of this Court but the matter has not still been decided, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner remained jobless during the period he was out of service. On his reinstatement he has automatically become eligible to claim salary for that period.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and record perused.
5. Earlier, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was decided by this Court and the petitioner neither raised the question of payment of the salary for the period during which the petitioner remained jobless, nor a request was made to the Court to pass an order to that effect. The order of reinstatement of the petitioner dated 10-3-2006, does not stipulate anywhere about the payment of the salary to the petitioner for the period during which he remained out of job. In the absence of a specific order of this Court no direction can be made to the respondent for the payment of the salary claimed by the petitioner. Additionally, the payment of salary, for the period when a workman/employee remained out of job, can only be made when it is specifically asserted in the pleadings and it has been proved through cogent evidence that during the period when such employee was out of job, he had not joined service elsewhere or he had not earned during this period through any other manner. Such question is a question of fact and cannot be gone into, in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
6. For the foregoing, this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed in limine.