' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this Constructional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner seeks implementation of the judgment of honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.R.A. No,421/2001 dated 2-5-2003.
2. The facts necessary to decide the present petition in brief are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in the year 1996 on contract basis for six months of project training progress with the respondents. The said contract was continued from time to time and thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated somewhere in 1998. Being aggrieved against the dismissal of his service, he approached to the Federal Service Tribunal where his appeal was dismissed being premature, which compelled him to file civil petition for leave to appeal before honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which was allowed by the honourable Supreme Court and the matter was remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal for decision afresh on merits. After remand of the matter, the Federal Service Tribunal heard the learned counsel for the parties and again dismissed the appeal which compelled the petitioner to approach to honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner invoked the review jurisdiction of the honourable Court by filing Review Petition No,421 of 2001 and similar other review petitions were also filed by number of petitioners employed with the respondents, the honourable Supreme Court after hearing of all the review petitions filed by the petitioner and others was pleased to allow the review petition on 2-5-2003 and the petitioner was reinstated in service and while granting review petition, the honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that since the case of the petitioner was at par with the case of Dr. Humaira Shaheen, who was earlier reinstated by the respondents as such the petitioner was entitled to equal protection of law in respect of work and privileges to that allowed to Dr. Humaira Shaheen.
After grant of review petition by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, it is alleged that the respondents did not follow the directions of the Supreme Court, as such the petitioner filed the contempt proceedings before the honourable Supreme Court vide Criminal Original Petition No,36 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 11-10-2003 whereby the respondents undertook to implement the order passed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan within two weeks from the date of the passing of the order in the aforesaid criminal original petitions. The respondents therefore, reinstated/absorbed the petitioner vide letter dated 11-11-2003 but the petitioner did not satisfy with the letter of reinstatement/absorption and filed another amended Contempt Petition No,58 of 2004 in Criminal Original Petition No,36 of 2003 before the honourable Supreme Court which also was disposed of vide order dated 12-5-2004 whereon again the Supreme Court was pleased to direct the respondents to issue the reinstatement/absorption letter in the letter and spirit of the order passed by the Supreme Court. The respondent again issued reinstatement/absorption letter which also did not satisfy the petitioner who again approached to honourable Supreme Court by filing amended Contempt Petition No,379 of 2004 in Criminal Original Petition No,36 of 2003 which was also disposed of on 11-5-2007 with the strict directions to implement the order passed by the Supreme Court in the letter and spirit. The respondent, therefore, issued another letter dated 22-5-2007 whereby reinstated the petitioner but he still was not satisfied with the said letter and filed another amended Contempt Application No,131 of 2007 in Criminal Original Petition No,36 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 4-9-2007 and in pursuance of the order of Supreme Court dated 4-9-2007 reinstatement/absorption letter was again issued by respondents No,2 to 6 on 10-9-2007 admittedly during such a lengthy litigation petitioner had joined the duties under protest and after final letter issued by the respondent for reinstatement/absorption dated 10-9-2007 still he did not satisfy and has filed the present petition stating therein his unsatisfaction regarding his reinstatement/absorption letter dated 10-9-2007 and prayed for directions to the respondents to implement the orders of the honourable Supreme Court strictly in the spirit in which it has been passed by the Supreme Court and has prayed for promotion from retrospective effect.
3. The respondents have filed their comments inter alia, challenging therein the maintainability of the petition and the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the petition. It has further been stated in the comments that the Sui Southern Gas Company has been' converted into private limited company and the shares of the company are exchangeable from the stock exchange and is being run under the provision of Companies Act 1913 and Companies Ordinance 1984 as such the relations in between the petitioner and the respondents are that of master and servant, therefore, the petition again the private limited company is not maintainable. It is further stated in the comments that the order passed by the honourable Supreme Court has been implemented in letter and spirit and that after reinstatement of the petitioner his conduct and performance is not satisfactory and instigating the other employees thereby tarnishing the atmosphere of the company for which an inquiry is also pending adjudication and the present petition has been filed just to harass and pressurize the respondents. It is further stated in the comments that the promotion is not the vested right of the petitioner and since his. Performance and conduct is questionable and his case was placed before the D.P.C. Who have not approved his promotion keeping in view the allied record and circumstances.
4. The respondent No,7 has also refuted the allegation contained in the petition by filing counter affidavit.
5. We have heard the petitioner in person, Mr. Umer Hayat Sandhu, D.A.G. For respondent No,1, Mr. Asim Iqbal, Advocate for respondents Nos.2 to 6 and Mr. Kalyandas, Advocate for respondent No, 7.
6. The petitioner vehemently stressed the sole ground of violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court on his review petition and contempt proceedings and has vehemently contended that the order of the Supreme Court direct the respondents to keep the status of the petitioner at par with the case of Dr. Humaira Shaheen, but the respondents have not issued the reinstatement/absorption letter in the letter and spirit and the observation made by the honourable Supreme Court has discriminated his case with the case of Dr. Humaira Shaheen that constrained him to join duties under protest and the respondent may be directed to keep the case the petitioner at par with the case of Dr. Humaira Shaheen. He further contended that the petitioner is also entitled for the arrears from the date of the judgment passed by the honourable Supreme Court but the respondents have not paid him the full arrears keeping in view the salary and benefits awarded to Dr. Humaira Shaheen, as such considerable amount of arrears accumulated due against the respondents in case, if the reinstatement/absorption letter is issued in the light of the observation made by the honourable Supreme Court.
7. Mr. Asim Iqbal, Advocate for respondent No,2 to 6 has vehemently opposed the contention advance by the petitioner and has contended that the petition is not maintainable as the respondents have reinstated and absorbed the petitioner in the light of the observations made by Supreme Court and that reinstatement/absorption has not been questioned by the petitioner since after issuance of letter on 10-9-2007 till the filing of the present petition which shows the satisfaction of the petitioner towards the implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court.
8. Mr. Umer Hayat Sandu, learned D.A.-G. For respondent No,1 and Mr. Kalyandas, Advocate for respondent No,7 have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Asim Iqbal, Advocate for respondent No,2.
9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the material available before us. The record available before us shows that there was lengthy litigation in between the parties after termination of the service of the petitioner which consumed two rounds of litigations before Federal Service Tribunal and three rounds before the honourable Supreme Court including the review jurisdiction of apex Court. The petitioner succeeded in getting his reinstatement in the review petition filed by him before the honourable Supreme Court and Supreme Court while dealing number of similar petitions of the S.S.G. Co. Employees was pleased to reinstate the petitioner vide order dated 2-5-2003 with the observation that the case of Saleem Mustafa Shaikh, Engineer Narain Das, absorption of the trainee Engineers, was directed for the reasons that the respondent-Company had itself absorbed one of the trainee engineers i.e, Nisar Setho therefore, treating the case of all the employees at par they were also directed to be absorbed in the service with specific observation in the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner and Dr. Humaira Shaheen belongs to same class therefore, former was also entitled to equal protection of law in respect of the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed in terms of Article 25(a) of the Constitution and the respondents were directed to absorb the petitioner keeping in view the case of Dr. Humaira Shaheen it is also an admitted position that the respondents did not issue the reinstatement/absorption letter in letter and spirit of the observation made by the honourable Supreme Court which compelled the petitioner to file contempt proceedings in the original side of apex Court and in the fourth round of criminal proceedings before the apex Court the reinstatement/absorption letter dated 10-9-2007 was issued after proper amendment. After issuance of letter dated 10-9-2007 the petitioner seems to be satisfied with the last communication therefore he remained silent for more than a year and after about 14 months from the date of issuance of letter dated 10-9-2007 he filed the present petition on 12-11-2008 seeking therein directions to the respondents to issue the corrigendum about his order of reinstatement/absorption issued by the respondents on 10-9-2007. The long lasting litigation before the superior courts show that the petitioner was very keen and vigilant over his rights devolved in him by virtue of order passed by the Supreme Court on his review petition and on meager aspect of the matter he vigilantly and vigorously used to approach the honourable Supreme Court by filing contempt proceedings but after issuance of final letter dated 10-9-2007 the petitioner remained silent for about 14 months which shows that the last letter of the reinstatement/absorption was issued completely under the spirit of the orders passed by the honourable Supreme Court and he has not assigned any reason in his petition for his remaining silent for about 14 months from the date of issuance of reinstatement/absorption letter dated 10-9- 2007, which shows that he was finally satisfied with his reinstatement/absorption and therefore, during the course of his argument before his Court he half-heartedly advance his argument on this aspect of the matter. It appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that his case has been distinguished with the case of Dr. Humaira Shaheen but it is an admitted position that the basic salary and the allowances were allowed to him by the respondents on the basis of group IV from the date of judgment passed by honourable Supreme Court but Dr. Humaira Shaheen was reinstated long before the case' of the petitioner therefore, she being constantly in service had/have an opportunity of yearly increment and other service benefit therefore, to that extent the monetary benefits of Dr. Humaira Shaheen and petitioner could not be equated.
10. In view of aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the petition merits no consideration which is hereby dismissed in limine along with listed applications.