This judgment shall dispose of W.P. Nos, 1556/11, 1582/11 and 2031/11 as identical facts and law points are involved therein.
2. Brief facts of the afore-stated constitution petitions are that the petitioners approached .the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through institution of C.P. No, 48/09 with a prayer to issue directions to the respondents to declare the petitioners as permanent employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its worthy judgment dated 4.11.10 accepted the appeal and granted the relief to the petitioners.
3. Operative part of the worthy judgment of August Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 4.11.10 is reproduced herein below for ready reference and facilitation: "As far as Petition No, 48 is concerned, this case is different from above petitions because they were regularly appointed on probation for a period of two years from 20.2.2006. whereafter their probation period has not been extended and the letters of permanent employment have not been issued in their favour. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has stated that non-issuance of such letter on expiry of probation clearly indicates that they have completed the probation period without any stain on their performance and now they are in the employment of PTV. Be that as it may if it is the stand of the Corporation, they are directed to issue the letters of permanent employees to those employees who have successfully completed their probationary period. As such this petition is disposed of accordingly."
4. That in the light of the judgment of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan, respondents were required to issue formal permanency letters to the petitioners, but they have failed to do so and hence the instant petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the relief was granted to the petitioners by August Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment dated 4.11.10, passed in constitution petition Nos, 42, 48, 50 and 62 of 2009, but the respondents have failed to adhere to the same. That in pursuance of the said judgment appointment letters were issued to the petitioners wherein they were advised to furnish fresh joining report contrary to the directions contained in the said judgment though the petitioners were declared permanent employees and letters of employment were to be issued accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of arguments placed reliance bn case law reported in 2006 SCMR 606, 2006 SCMR 489, judgment dated 13.10.09 (un-reported) passed in CPLA No, 1538/08 and 2011 SCMR 788.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the afore-stated orders of the August .Supreme Court of Pakistan, were already executed by issuance of appointment orders to the petitioners.
That the petitioners cannot avail any such relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as the rules of the organization of the respondents are non-statutory.
That the petitioners, in case of any grievance, were to approach the August Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was further argued that the writ petitions for the aforementioned reasons are not entertainable. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following case law in support of his arguments, 2011 SCMR 944, .1992 SCMR 1093, 2010 SCMR 1484, 2009 PLC (CS) 565, judgment dated 4.6.09 in W.P. No, 2430/06 Islamabad. High Court (unreported), judgment dated 5.8.09 in CP No, 331 of 2009 Supreme Court of Pakistan (un-reported), 2007 PLC (CS) 138, judgment dated 16.6.10 passed, in W.P. No, 24480/09 Lahore High Court . (unreported), judgment dated 16.7.08 passed in W.P. No, 534/08 Islamabad High Court (unreported), judgment dated 28.3.08 passed in W.P. No, 518/07 Lahore High Court (unreported), judgment dated 25.6.08 passed in W.P.No, 701/08 Islamabad High Court (unreported), judgment dated 23.9.11 in W.P. No, 608/11 Islamabad High Court (unreported) and judgment dated 26.8.09 passed in CP No, 1362 of 2009 passed by Supreme Court of Pakistan.
8. A careful study and scrutiny of the case law laid down in the said cases referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents would reveal that the services of employees of PTV Corporation, governed by non-statutory rules, wore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. No view contrary to the view expressed in the reported cases can be formed with respect to the status of the rules of Service or Employees of PTV Corporation.
9. The facts of the case of the petitioners and relief asked therein is, however, different and distinguishable from the facts of the cases referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents as in the instant cases, petitioners are not seeking the enforcement of their rights with reference to the terms and conditions of service, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court rather they are seeking implementation of the judgment of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above, wherein controversy emanating from the terms of service was finally settled and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. For further explicating the matter, Article 187 of the Constitution and Article 175 of the Constitution vide Act X of 2010, Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 are reproduced hereinafter for ready reference; Article 187. Issue and execution of processes of Supreme Court.--(1) Subject to clause (2) of Article 175, the Supreme Court shall have power to issue such directions, orders, or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person for the discovery or production of any document.
(2) Any such direction, order or decree shall be enforceable throughout Pakistan and shall, where it is to be executed in a Province, or a territory or an area not forming part of a Province but within the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Province, be executed as if had been issued by the High Court of that Province.
(3) If a question arises as to which High Court shall give effect to a direction, order or decree of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Supreme Court on the question shall be final.
66. Amendment of Article 175 of the Constitution.--In the Constitution, in Article 175, in clause (1), after the word "Province" the word "and a High Court for the Islamabad Capital Territory" shall be inserted and under clause (1) amended as aforesaid, the following Explanation shall be added, namely:-- "Explanation.--The words "High Court" wherever occurring in the Constitution shall include the High Court for the Islamabad Capital Territory".
In the perspective of the afore-stated legal position, this Court has an obligatory role to enforce and execute the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan meant and passed for doing complete justice in a case or matter and in the shape of direction, order or decree.
11. The August Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a case similar to the cases in hand, has observed in its judgment dated 13.10.09 passed in CPLA No, 1538 of 2008 that the petitioners were justified in approaching the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction for seeking implementation of the judgment of Supreme Court in letter and spirit.
12. The petitioners were a party in C.P. No, 48 of 2009 and were declared as permanent employees by the August Supreme. Court of Pakistan as such the respondents are obliged to issue, necessary and explicit orders, designating the petitioners as permanent employees without an embargo of any probation period or fresh joining report. The orders shall be efficiently and expeditiously implemented within a period not beyond or exceeding three months.
13.The writ petitions are accepted in the above terms.