' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.--- The appellants have assailed the vires of order dated 22-12-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court, whereby W.P.No,1102 of 2011 filed by the respondents was allowed.
2. Learned A.A.-G. Has contended that at the time of recruitment of the respondents, the required qualification for the post was matriculation under the Punjab Local Government and Rural Development Department Service Rules, 1981 but subsequently through an amendment in the said Rules, the qualification was altered to F.A. 2nd Division and the respondents did not possess the said qualification and as such were not considered for regularization, whereas those who possessed the required qualification were duly regularized; that W.P.No,2733 of 2010 and W.P.No,5181 of 2010 were dismissed and as such W.P.No,1102 of 2011 was hit by principle of res judicata but the learned Single Judge in Chamber did not take notice of the same and that the contract employees have no vested right for regularization.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time; that I.C.A. No,44 of 2011 was filed and a learned Division Bench of this Court allowed the withdrawal of the same with permission to file fresh writ petition and as such the principle of res judicata is not applicable and that at the time of recruitment, the respondents possessed the required qualification so the amendment made subsequently would not affect their rights adversely. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Bank of Punjab v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 666), Mst. Bhakhan and others v.
Mst. Ghulam Janat and others (2005 SCM R 1662) and Collector Land Acquisition, Abbottabad and others v. Fazal-ur-Rehman and others (2009 SCM R 767).
4. Under Article 151 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, a period of 20 days is prescribed for filing of an appeal against the decree or order of the High Court passed in exercise of its original jurisdiction. The limitation starts from the date of the decree or the order appealed from. Although no certified copy of the order is required for filing of the Intra Court Appeal but even if the period of four days i,e, 16-1-2012 to 19-1-2012 is excluded the appeal, which was filed for the first time on 30-1- 2012 was hopelessly barred by time. No application for condonation of delay was moved. The contention that the necessary permission was required and the time was spent in obtaining the same, does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Government like an ordinary litigant is also required to be vigilant and seek remedy in accordance with law and within the period prescribed by it. The appeal is hopelessly barred by time and merits dismissal on this ground alone.
5. The contention that through an amendment made in the Punjab Local Government and Rural Development Department Service Rules, 1981, the qualification for the post of Secretary Union Council has been re-prescribed as F.A. 2nd Division and the respondents being matriculates are not entitled for regularization against the said posts has no force because it is the basic principle of the interpretation of Statutes that the subordinate legislation cannot take retrospective effect. The learned Single Judge in Chamber has rightly observed that the respondents being duly qualified for the post at the time of their initial appointment cannot be deprived of the benefits of Notification No,D.S (O&M) 5-3/2004/Contract (MF) dated 14-10-2009. Moreover the administrative Department through U.O.No,S.0-Admn-I(LG)9-5/12 dated 2-3-2012 has already moved the Finance Department for down gradation of the post from BS-11 to BS-7 in order to accommodate the respondents. The administrative Department may, therefore, pursue the matter with the Finance Department and implement the order passed by this Court. The contention that the contract employees have no right for regularization is also without force because all such employees have been given the right of regularization as other employees placed under similar conditions have been extended this benefit by the Government through Notification referred to above.
6. The contention that the writ petition was hit by principle of resjudicata is without force because the order dated 6-4-2011 passed in W.P.No,2733 of 2010 was assailed by the respondents in I.C.A.
No,44 of 2011 and a learned Division Bench of this Court allowed the withdrawal of the same and also granted permission to the respondents to file fresh writ petition and as such the subsequent writ petition did not suffer from any infirmity.
7. For the reasons supra, the ICA is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.