1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a petition for special leave directed against an order dated 31st of March 1979, whereby a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore has dismissed in lirnine the Writ Petition No. 1722 of 1979 filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that in the year 1967 Muhammad Hafeez Khan petitioner was appointed as Market Investigator and Estate Officer in the Lahore Improvement Trust (Water Wing)
3. Lahore and later on his service was regularized under the Lahore Development Authority, Lahore.
4. But it appears that afterwards his service was terminated without any show --cause notice issued of him. At last however, he was r---instated in service after a span of about 10 years by the Chief Secretary, Punjab vide his order dated 6th of March 1978. Therefore, respondent No. 3 moved an application for a review of the order and from the 6th of June 1978 his service was again terminated on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. Eventually, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 4511 of 1978 challenging his removal from service. At the bearing before a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, the petitioner appeared in person along with his learned counsel Sheikh Ghias Muhammad, Advocate and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were represented by Mr. Farooq Khan, Advocate, when the latter submitted that the Director-General, Lahore Development Authority has passed the following order in the case of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds :- "L. D. A. Will give this gentleman a fresh appointment the emoluments of which would be compatible with that be would have drawn had he continued with his service all along with the L. D.
5. A. It may not be exactly the same but would be fairly close."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner felt satisfied with this concession made by the Director- General, Lahore Development Authority, Lahore and even the petitioner who was at the time personally present in the Court also accepted this proposal. It was however, made clear in the order that the petitioner would not claim any seniority viz-a-viz other employees of the Lahore Development Authority nor would he claim any arrears of salary. In the light of this order the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. In pursuance to this undertaking respondent No. 3 made an offer for a fresh appointment to the petitioner in National Pay Scale Grade No. 11 (433-24-550/28- 830) plus the usual allowances as admissible under the Rules against his previous grade which was Rs. 335-35-600.
7. In spite of this however, the petitioner moved a miscellaneous application (C. M. 1 of 1979) in Writ Petition No. 4511 of 1979 seeking restoration of the writ petition by setting aside the consent order passed by the Court in the case on the 16th of January 1979. But learned Judge of the High Court rejected the application in limine on the 28th of January 1979 holding that the grade offered to the petitioner was clearly compatible and fairly close to grade enjoyed by him earlier and that the Lahore Development Authority has duly honoured its commitment given by it to the petitioner in Court.
8. In spite of this the petitioner then filed the Writ Petition No. 1722 of 1979 in the High Court alleging that the order dated 16th of January 1979 had been passed against him without his consent and the same may therefore, be set aside, nor have the respondents faithfully honoured their promise and undertaking given in Court. But this was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore by his impugned order passed on the 31st of March 179. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
9. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended the petitioner did not consent to the passing of the order dated 16th of January, 1979 disposing of his earlier Writ Petition No. 4511 of 1978. But in repelling this contention the learned Judge in Chambers observed that in para. 4 of Civil Miscellaneous Nos. I of 1979 the petitioner had clearly stated that he had reluctantly expressed his willingness to accept the offer of the respondent and that there--fore the stand taken by him afterwards to the effect that the consent order was forced upon him was belied by his own earlier stand in Court. The learned Judge also sent for Haji Ghias Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared in Court in response to the call and submitted in no uncertain terms that the order dated 16th of January 1979 was consented to by him as the counsel for the petitioner and that even the petitioner was also personally present in Court when the said order was passed and that be too had clearly accepted the said order. He affirmed the contents of the order dated 16th of January 1979 as having been passed with the mutual consent of the parties. Before the Court the petitioner failed to place any material on the record to show that the Lahore Development Authority had not honoured its commitment given in Court on the 16th of January 1979. In view of this conduct on the part of the petitioner and his attempt to resile from the earlier consent order, the learned Judge in chambers declined to interfere in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction vested in him and dismissed the writ petition in limine.
10. We have heard the petitioner in this petition for special leave and also sent for Mr. Farooq Zaman, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. After hearing the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 we find that there is hardly any room for interference in these proceedings before us. We have no doubt the order dated I6th of January 1979 was passed with the free consent of the petitioner who was at the time also represented by a senior counsel of this Court. His subsequent attempt to resile out of his own acceptance of the offer made to him was of no avail to him and his Civil Miscellaneous No. I of 1979 was rightly dismissed by the High Court on the 28th of January 1979. The petitioner did not at all come up to this Court against that order which has attained finality. In spite of this, however, he then filed the Writ Petition No. 1722 of 1979 which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order passed by the learned judge on the 31st of March 1979, after having gone through the record and also having sent for the leached counsel for the petitioner who was represen--ting him when the order dated 16th of January 1979 was passed by the Court in disposing of his earlier writ petition.
11. For the foregoing reason, we find that this is a frivolous petition, it has no force and is therefore, dismissed.