HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. --- Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner joined the service as Senior Assistant in the Youth Investment Promotion Society (YIPS) owned and controlled by the Government of Pakistan on 29.8.1988 he was promoted as 0G-Ill in 1993, the society was dissolved on ,30.3.1998 and the services of the petitioner alongwith other employees were terminated with effect from 25.6.1990, the petitioner was paid terminal benefits and he was advised to submit application for fresh appointment in Small Business Finance Corporation (SBFC) by 30.6 1999. The petitioner applied for the appointment in SBFC, he was appointed as Officer Grade-III on 1.7.1999 thereafter through Ordinance No. LVI namely the Regional Development Finance Corporation and Small Business Finance Corporation (Amalgamation and Conversion) Ordinance. 2001 the SME Bank Limited was established and services of the entire staff of the SBFC was transferred to SME Bank Limited.
2. The petitioner performed his duties for a considerable long time, however, through order dated 4.12.2001 the petitioner was removed from service, he filed a departmental Appeal which' was rejected on 23.11.2002 and then he filed appeal No. 332(L)/CE/2002 before the Federal Service Tribunal which was allowed on 10.5.2006 in the following terms:- "In view of the above clear cut position of law and facts, we find that the Appellant had been proceeded against under a wrong law. As such, it would be futile to go into merits or demerits of the case under consideration. Accordingly, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 4.12.2001. The respondents, however, would be at liberty to hold de novo proceedings against the Appellant by holding a regular inquiry under the applicable law and rules, if they so desire. In case, the de novo proceedings are held , these would be finalized expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of this judgment is received in the office of the Respondents. In case, however, no de novo inquiry held by the Respondents as mentioned above, the Appellant will be entitled to his full back benefits and the intervening period shall be treated as if the Appellant had remained on duty during the same. "
3. The judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 10.5.2006 was not implemented so the petitioner filed W.P. No. 10314/2006 in the Lahore High Court for the implementation of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated in service through order dated 26.11.2007 instead of his removal from service on 04.12.2001 and according to the learned counsel, the said writ petition is still pending whereas the respondents have not paid the back benefits in terms of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned counsel submits that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 10.5.2006 was not challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, meaning thereby that the said judgment attained finality; further submits that as per directions of the Federal Service Tribunal that, "to initiate de novo proceedings which shall be finalized preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt a copy of judgment in the office of respondents, in case, no de novo inquiry is held by the respondents as mentioned above, the petitioner shall be entitled for all back benefits and the intervening period shall be treated as the petitioner remained on duty."
4. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the respondents have not initiated and completed the de novo proceedings within four months so the respondents are estopped from initiating any proceedings if they so desire at a belated stage but unfortunately, the respondents have initiated de novo proceedings through charge-sheet dated 11.12.2007 i.e. After one year and seven months in violation of the said judgment according to which the de novo proceedings in case initiated were required to be completed within a period of four months. The petitioner requested for the withdrawal of the charge-sheet before the respondents but with no result rather the respondents continuing disciplinary proceedings on the strength of charge-sheet dated 11.12.2007 which otherwise is bad in law and cannot sustain in the field. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits the time frame given by the learned Tribunal is not mandatory and this time could be extended as per law laid down in 1997 PLC (CS)
182 and the present writ petition is not competent against SME Bank.
5. Arguments heard; record perused.
6. Without going into the details, suffice it to confine a precise question that the present writ petition is only for the enforcement of judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and for that this Court can issue writ as per law laid down in S. Lnamul Haq v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Govt. Of Pakistan (NLR 1982 Service 236) and Ghulam Sarwar v. Habib Bank Limited and others (2001 PLC (CS) 198).
7. Since the conditions of service of the petitioner are regulated by the statutory provisions i.e. Regional Development Finance Corporation and Small Business Finance Corporation (Amalgamation and Conversion) Ordinance, 2001 the petitioner and similarly - placed colleagues are still amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal as per para-108 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2006 SC 602).
8. Despite the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others a matter relating to an employee of Small Business Finance Corporation was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan out of the judgment of the Federal, Service Tribunal dated 09.1.2003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan extended the relief to the aggrieved person through judgment dated 09.10.2008 in Civil Appeal No. 427/2005. While deciding the case the apex Court in para-4 of the judgment referred the case of. Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2006 SC 602) as well as Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank (PLD 2007 SC 681)..
9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the respondents did not approach the Federal Service Tribunal for the extension of time of four months as stipulated by the Federal Service Tribunal in its judgment, thus the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. 1997 PLC (CS) 182 cannot be helpful for the respondents whereas the judgment passed by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 427/2005 titled as Mehr Muhammad Nawaz v. M.D. Small Business Finance Corporation can be safely relied for the issuance of this writ petition. It is held that if in some colleagues case the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal can be interfered with by the apex Court even in the presence of judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Defence and others (PLD 2006 SC 602), the present petitioner cannot be discriminated and for that I rely on a para of the same judgment and i.e. In the following terms:--- "Needless to emphasis that while dealing with the case where the aggrieved party alleges discrimination, the Court cannot overlook the implication thereof. Equal treatment of all similarly situated is the basic principle on which rests justice under the law. If even handed justice is not administered, it can have many adverse and negative effects on a society. It can cause discontentment and frustration in the social setup. There can be no denial that social justice is an objective and enshrined in our Constitution."
10. In the attending circumstances the respondents are directed to implement the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal in letter and spirit i.e. Giving effect the date of joining of the petitioner from 4.12.2001 instead of 10.5.2006.
11. Respondents are further directed not to initiate any proceedings on the basis of charge-sheet dated 11.12.2007 as the time stipulated by the Federal Service Tribunal is already expired as per its judgment dated 10.5.2006.
12. Grant the petitioner all the benefits accruing from the said judgment within a period of two months from today.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. .