ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this civil revision, the petitioners four in number, challenge the orders dated 31.7.2012 and 22.10.2012 passed by the learned executing Court as well as by the learned Addl. District Judge respectively.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this civil revision are that the respondents/decree-holders 145 in number filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners/judgment-debtors which was decreed on 29.3.1995 declaring the letters dated 4.3.1991 and 11.08.1991 as illegal and in effective over the rights of the respondents/decree-holders.
Resultantly they were not to be treated as fresh appointees and were held to be entitled to deputation allowance from the time of deputation till the merger of their service, with a permanent restraining order requiring them to submit new service books.
An appeal was preferred which was dismissed on 16.05.1998 as abated on insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973; that the petitioners/judgment-debtors filed appeal No. 510(R) 1998 on 30.06.1998 under Section 6 read with Section, 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 against the said judgment and decree which too was dismissed on 27.08.1998; that on 07.02.1999 the respondents filed an execution application which was objected by the petitioners on the ground that execution application had become infructuous as the appeal against the same had abated which was dismissed on .
15.09.1999. Thereafter Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1999 filed against the said order was dismissed on 29.04.2000 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi. Thereafter Civil Revision No. 295 of 2000 was filed before this Court which met the same fate and was dismissed on 09.06.2000. Against the same order a civil petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 14.09.2000.
On 13.10.2003 the learned executing Court directed to judgment-debtor to pay a definite amount to the decree-holder, against which an appeal was filed which also dismissed by the learned Adll.
District Judge, Rawalpindi on 04.06.2005. Civil Revision No 444 of 2005 was preferred which was accepted on 26.03.2009 and the case was remanded to the executing Court with a direction to decide a fresh cause pending before it to settle the inter-alia scope of the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1999; recovery, of Rs. 1,85,02,331/-from the petitioner and whether the said amount has already been paid to the respondents/decree-holders in compliance with the mandate of the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1995 and that after settlement of these points, the recovery shall be effected. On 10.05.2012 the learned executing Court directed the respondents to get the approval of Rs. 8,03,71,741/- from the competent authority against which an appeal was then filed which was accepted on 21.06.2012.
The petitioners on 16.07.2012 filed an objection application before the executing Court which was dismissed by the executing Court on 31.07.2012 against which an appeal was preferred, which met the same fate and dismissed on 22.10.2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the executing Court as well as Appellate Court failed to give any finding on the questions raised by the petitioners, whether the decree is executable; that the decree can be decided in two parts i.e. Declaratory in nature which is not executable and secondly, though was executable has already been executed; that the respondents are not entitled for pensionery benefits; that the respondent have also failed to establish that while working under Airport Development Agency, they were ever entitled to the pension, any benefit or gratuity; that the requisite length of service of the petitioners cannot be calculated from the time when they joined the Airport Development Agency; that A.D.A.
Was a private limited company in which the decree-holders were working on workcharge basis; that Aviation Development Authority has never contributed towards the pension funds whereas A.G.P.R. Has contributed funds towards the employees of Civil Aviation Authority and accorded the pensionery funds; that the pension benefits were irrevocable deed, which is an independent body and no decree was passed against the trust; that the respondents cannot claim that their condition of services in Civil Aviation Authority be applied to their service in A.D.A. Hence prays for dismissal of the impugned order.
4. Conversely, the respondents 21 in number, present in person, candidly and frankly admitted that at this point of time they have depleted all their available sources and by now cannot even able to appoint any counsel. They submit that the petitioners in this fourth round of litigation have flouted and frustrated the decree so passed; that the decree is executable un-ambiguous clear and targeted one which simply meant its execution; that even this Court has already not only upheld the decree but has also directed to the executing Court to implement it with letter and spirit; that simply respondents were treated to be deputationist for the purpose of deputation allowance till their merger of their service without asking their fresh service books and there was no second opinion that they are entitled of all the benefits at par with other employees of the petitioners; that the petitioners have been transferred/succeeded huge assets from the Airport Development Authority and by now the respondents are door persons and are being exploited for their poverty; that let justice may be done even if the heaven would fall; that a decree has to be executed one day with its letter and spirit and it should be executed during the life time of the surviving/remaining respondents.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the available record.
6. I am astonished to note that a decree passed by a competent Court attained the finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and is still pending before the executing Court since 1999 even remained un-executed after a lapse' of 13 years. Needless to state that the same pertains to the pension and gratuity which is bread and butter of the retired employees. It is inhuman to drag an employee to such a miserable situation by playing with the legal technicalities just to frustrate the decree and delay its execution. In my humble understanding it is deplorable. In this view of the matter I dismiss this civil revision and direct to the learned executing Court to execute the decree with its letter and spirit within a period of the three months from the receipt of this order with intimation to this Court through its D.R. (Judi.). I am deliberately restraining myself to impose exemplary costs.
Civil revision .