' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Petitioner submits that he was appointed as Junior Clerk through order, dated 18-7-1991 in the L.D.A. As work charge employee, however, due to continuous performance of his duties without any break he became a permanent workman. The petitioner was stopped to work in December, 1999 when the salaries were stopped to be paid to him as well as to his colleagues. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since then the petitioner is persuading for redressal of his grievance but with no result, however, his certain colleagues approached N.I.R.C.
Where a judgment was passed directing the L.D.A. To regularize all the employees like the petitioner but unfortunately the, petitioner could not associate his colleagues before the N.I.R.C. Further submits that similarly placed persons have been accommodated by L.D.A., whereas the petitioner is singled out.
2. The learned Legal Advisor for L.D.A. Submits that the petitioner was not a party to the litigation before N.I.R.C. And as such he cannot be granted the benefit, which was extended to the other employees who invoked the jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. Further submits that even at this moment there is no record available with L.D.A., which could confirm the petitioner's contention in respect of his continuous service with L.D.A. From 1991 to 1999.
3. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
4. After hearing both the parties, it transpires that practically the matter relates to controversial facts i,e, whether the petitioner performed his duties with L.D.A. From the years 1991 to 1999 and whether similarly placed persons were accommodated by the L.D.A. Whereas the petitioner is being discriminated, but in the interest of justice, I am inclined to refer the matter to the Director-General, L.D.A., with a direction to depute a responsible officer who shall examine the petitioner's contentions and if it is found that his colleagues who were at par with him have been benefited on the strength of directions of N.I.R.C.
Then keeping in view the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division 1996 SCM R 1185, the petitioner should not be dragged into litigation rather he be also allowed the same benefit, which was granted to the similarly placed persons. Disposed of accordingly.