' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--- Through the service appeal, appellant assailed the order dated 4-11-1997 passed by respondent.
2. The appellant joined Lahore High Court, Lahore, as Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer and was promoted as Private Secretary on 23-11-1995 in BPS-17 in the establishment of Lahore High Court, Lahore; the 24 years' service record of appellant is without a single stigma; in 1997 appellant was performing his duties as Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Lahore; the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 3-11-1997 allowed two advance increments to appellant by exercising his powers under Rule 26 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment Conditions of Service) Rules; the order then was passed on to respondent for issuance of notification; on 3-11- 1997, the then Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Justice proposed a Note proposing that notification of the posting of Protocol Officer and Deputy Protocol Officer may kindly be held in abeyance and their case also be referred to Administration Committee for consideration; the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to pass the following order: "Put up before A/C in its next meeting."
2. The respondent without any reason and permission of Hon'ble Chief Justice subsequently added the following Note in the note of Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Justice on 4-11-1997 and submitted the same to Administration Committee;-- "All matters relating to advance increments, up-gradations and promotions etc. Shall be placed in the next meeting of the AC and till then, no order/notification shall be issued"
2. The Administration Committee on 22-12-1998 discussed the matter and observed as under:--- "As recommended by the sub-committee, grant of two advance increments to the officers is not approved"
2. In the meantime, the appellant's services were transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, on 15-8-2000; the appellant came to know that order dated 3-11-1997 has been set aside without even allowing any opportunity of hearing to appellant. The appellant however was not conveyed any reasons for rejecting the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice till the filing of appeal in spite of his requests. However, through Office Memorandum No,18788-Gaz.1.VZ.2(a) dated 5-9- 2008, the appellant came to know about the refusal order:- "I am directed to state that your application dated 2-1-2008 on the subject cited, was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his lordship has been pleased to observe that the Administration Committee decision dated 22-12-1998 reproduced below holds the grounds: "As recommended by the Sub Committee, grant of two advance increments to the officers is not approved."
6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice has only referred the matter of Protocol Officer and Deputy Protocol Officer to Hon'ble Chief Justice and the order allowing advancing increments to appellant was not the subject matter of the proposal dated 4-11-1997. He further submits that order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Rule 26 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment Conditions of Service) Rules is not revisable nor justice able. The Hon'ble Chief Justice is enjoying the powers to grant two or three advance increments according to the performance of the employees in his sole discretion. The order dated 3-11-1997 was conveyed to appellant and a vested right accrued in his favour, the respondent thus was bound to hear appellant before taking any adverse action against the appellant. Learned counsel has relied' on an order of the then acting Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 4-11-1986 passed in the case of Messrs Saleem Haider and Muhammad Azam. He submits that Hon'ble Chief Justice being the Head of the judiciary of the Province has the absolute powers to pass orders for promotion, grant of increments and other benefits according to his assessment of the employee. Learned counsel adds that it is the custom and usage of High Court that every Hon'ble Chief Justice at the time of his elevation or retirement grants advances increments and promotion etc. To the employees. Learned counsel has pointed out number of notifications to this effect and last notification of the year 2011.
7. Learned Law Officers assisted by Additional Registrar (Establishment) on behalf of respondent raised an objection that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time. As the original order has passed on 3-11-1997, the appellant's representation was dismissed on 15-8-2000 and second representation was dismissed on 5-9-2008 and as such the appeal is not maintainable being barred by time. Learned Law Officers further submit that powers conferred upon by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Rule 26 ibid are justice able before the Administration Committee, the Administration Committee has rightly passed the impugned order. Learned Law Officer after examining the notifications dated 27-10-2011 and 10-8-2011 frankly admits that Hon'ble Chief Justice has awarded advance increments to his private secretary and other staff. Learned Law Officer contends that Administration Committee at any stage set aside the out of turn grant of increments and promotion.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. It is an admitted fact that Hon'ble Chief Justice on 3-11-1997 by
10. Exercising his powers under Rule 26 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment Conditions of Service) Rules passed order in the following terms:--- "Johnson Bernard and Muhammad Sharif Rana, PS who have been working with me for the last more than 5 years have performed their duties without shirking the same. They worked with one till late night so many occasions. They deserve grant of two advance increments. The same are allowed." (under lined by us.)
8. Rule 26 ibid is read as under:--- "26. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or abridge the powers of the Chief Justice to appoint or promote any person who has neither passed nor qualified at an examination held by the Public Service Commission or under these rules or to deal with the case of any person in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable."
11. Under Rule 6(1)(c) of Volume-V Chapter-10 Part "C" of the High Court Establishment (Appointment Conditions of Service) Rules, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court has the power to appoint an officer, the Registrar in his own discretion, meaning thereby, the appointing authority of Registrar is the Hon'ble Chief Justice, hence it is clear that Registrar is not the appellate or revisional authority of the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Lahore High Court enjoys absolute powers under Rule 26 ibid to grant increments to any employee of the High Court including the Registrar.
12. The Hon'ble Chief Justice on 3-11-1997 passed well-reasoned order after assessing the capabilities and services rendered by the appellant, the reason for grant of two advance increments are that "appellant and one Muhammad Sharif Rana have been working with him for the last 5 years, they have performed their duties without any blemish or slightest mistake. The two officers worked with the Hon'ble Chief Justice till late night on number of occasions". The Hon'ble Chief Justice, keeping in view the appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana performance and services rendered for the judiciary came to the conclusion that both officers deserve grant of two advance increments. After evaluating the appellant's credentials the Hon' ble Chief Justice concluded as under:-- "The same are allowed."
13. After the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Registrar was to issue notification only. It is not understandable why the then Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Justice prepared the following proposal; "Most respectfully it is submitted that three posts have since been upgraded. In one case notification has been issued while in other two, notification is yet to be issued. All other such individual and collective cases have been referred to the Administration Committee which is a step in right direction. The three up-gradations made will create frustration, heart burning and despondency in the other cadres which is not congenial for the smooth working of the office.
' It is therefore humbly requested that the notification of the posts of Protocol Officer and Deputy Protocol Officer may kindly be held in abeyance and their cases may also be referred to the Administration Committee for consideration."
' When the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice was passed on to Registrar only for compliance, the Registrar has no right and authority in law to withhold the issuance of Notification.
14. The proposal of Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Justice shows that order pertaining to the appellant is not the subject-matter of said proposal; it pertains to post of Protocol Officer and Deputy Protocol Officer whose posts were upgraded. The Hon'ble Chief Justice on the proposal of Registrar passed order for placing the proposal before the Administration Committee. The Hon'ble Chief Justice never approved the proposal dated 4-11-1997 that his orders qua the appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana be placed before Administration Committee. It is the respondent who illegally issued following order; "All matters relating to advance increments, up-gradations and promotions etc. Shall be placed in the next meeting of the AC and till then, no order/notification shall be issued."
15. The above said order was never ordered to be issued by Hon'ble Chief Justice.
16. The Registrar was not having any power to object the orders passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice qua the appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana. If the Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice was of the opinion that order dated 3-11-1997 is against law he should inform the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the mala fide of Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice is evident that while submitting note dated 3-11- 1997 he has not informed the Hon'ble Chief Justice about his order for grant of advance increments to appellant, the proposed note is pertaining to the dispute of Protocol Officers and the Hon'ble Chief Justice only ordered for placing the proposal qua the Protocol Officers before Administration Committee, hence the matter placed before the Administration Committee was only for the up- gradation of three officers. These facts Show that order favouring appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana was never ordered to be placed before Administration Committee. For the sake of argument if it is presumed that the proposal of Registrar dated 4-11-1997 pertains to the case of appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana, then question will arise, whether the Registrar was competent to place the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice without his approval before Administration Committee, the answer is certainly not. The Registrar is the subordinate authority of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and without his permission in writing; the Registrar has no authority even to add one 'comma' or 'full stop' in the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice. Hence, the subsequent addition dated 4-11-1997 in a Note dated 3-11-1997 by the Registrar is without any lawful authority.
17. From the above said facts it is clear that order of Hon'ble Chief Justice remained valid as it was never ordered to be placed before the Administration Committee, and as such the argument of learned counsel for appellant has a weight that order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the benefit of appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana remain in force. The entire proceedings of Administration Committee arc based on a proposal dated 4-11-1997, although the names of appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana are not included in the said Note and on a wider interpretation of the said Note, if we presume that the case of appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana is part of this Note it will be deemed to be a Note without lawful authority. The Registrar thus was not having any authority to amend, alter or add any word in an order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is not the case of respondent that Registrar B submitted Note to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for revising the order dated 3-11-1997 qua the appellant and Muhammad Sharif Rana for granting of two increments but the case of respondent is that the Registrar proposal was placed before the Administration Committee which approved the same and the Administration Committee set aside the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
18. As we have already concluded that the Registrar has no authority in law to interfere in the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed under Rule 26 ibid, the Note dated 4-11-1997 is without lawful authority. It is an established principle of law that no limitation run against a void order. We thus declare the Note dated 4-11-1997 of Registrar without lawful authority and as such all orders passed on the basis of proposal of Registrar is nullity in the eye of law. The order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 3-11-1997 remains in field without any attack on the part of competent authority.
19. In view of above, this appeal is allowed and impugned order/Memorandum dated 5-9-2008 is set aside.