1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-We are surprised by this petition for leave to appeal filed on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division against the order dated 3-11-1980 passed by the Services Tribunal, Islamabad, the effect of which is to indirectly challenge the order of the President of Pakistan.
2. The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1, Mr. Abdul Qadir Haye was a member of the Police Service of Pakistan. On 30-11-1972, he was posted to the Prime Minister's House. In the course of a meeting addressed on 22-12-1975 by the then Prime Minister at 'a People's Party's Convention he smiled at some remarks made by the Prime Minister, whereon he was suspended from service for misconduct on 23-12-1975. On 9.6-1976, be was re-instated and posted out of the Police Service of Pakistan to the Office Management Group. His lien in the Police Service was also terminated. This incident is recounted as one of the glaring instance of the arbitrariness of the previous regime, in the White Paper published, by the present Government.
3. The respondent No. 1 naturally represented against the termination of his lien and the President of Pakistan by Notification No. 9/74/75-C. 11, dated 1-4-1978 was pleased to transfer the said respondent to the Police Group on permanent basis. He was further please:: to restore him to the same position in the Police Group which he would have enjoyed had he not been transferred to the office Management Group. A further Notification dated 20-6-1978 was issued whereby it was ordered that the period of suspen--sion shall be treated as on duty. He was later on promoted as D. I.-G. On 22-8-1979.
4. During the period when respondent No. 1 stood suspended some Provincial Service Officers of Police were absorbed in the P. S. P. And the latter promoted to grade 19 in preference to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 being of the view that the orders of the President referred to above had been ignored in calculating his seniority, when he was promoted as D. I: G. Made a representation urging that the said orders of the President had not been given effect to in this regard. However, as no reply was received, he filed an appeal before the Services Tribunal. The Members of the Tribunal held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to be considered for promotion along with his other batch mates and in ignoring him an error was con-emitted when his other batch mates were promoted.
5. It, therefore, directed that he be promoted with effect from 19-5-1976, when they were promoted and which point of time he was still in the Police Service of Pakistan, although suspended. The appeal was accepted in the above terms.
6. The above decision was not challenged by the batch mates or the other colleagues of respondent No. 1, who would be affected by this order but has been challenged by the Secretary, Establishment Division on the ground that the respondent had no vested right to be promoted to Grade 19 in the Police Group in allowing this the Tribunal had noted contrary to certain rules.
7. However, we observe that the Tribunal has merely implemented the orders of the President, who had power to deal with the case of any civil servant in such a manner as appeared to be just and equitable, a power is enshrined under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act in the following terms:- "23. Nothing in this Act or in any rule shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the President to deal with the case of any civil servant in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable: Provided that where this Act or any rule is applicable to the case of a servant, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him than that provided by this Act or such rule."
8. When the attention of Mr. Shahudul Haq was drawn to this provision, he could give no satisfactory answer why the action that has been taken could not be taken under it.
9. We, therefore, think that the President had righted a grave wrong done to respondent No. 1 and to interfere with it is not appropriate and that the present case is not at all a. Fit case for interference.
10. The order impugned is not only a just and equitable order but suffers from no illegality.
11. This petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.