Malik Manzoor Hussain, J.--Petitioner Liaqat Ali, an employee of PCSIR Laboratories Peshawar, through the instant petition under Article. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has asked for the issuance of an appropriate write to: To declare the promotion of Respondent No, 4 as illegal and without lawful authority; Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for antedate promotion in, accordance with 1981 Regulations.
2. /acts of the case arc that petitioner joined Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR) on 4.2.1976 as LDC and his services were regulated through Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Employees (Service) Regulation 1981. He was promoted to the post of Technician (BPS-14) on 4.1.1082 and further promotion to the post of Senior Technician(BPS-14) on 28.5.1991 and later on promoted as Junior Technical Officer (JTO) BPS-16 on 27.5.2000. In 1993, the Regulations of 1981 were amended by the name Career Structure in Pakistan Council and Industrial Research (Amendments and Corrections, 1993) and accordingly the post of JTO held by the petitioner was re-designated as Principal Technician. But when the turn of his promotion to the post of next higher grade i,e, Technical Officer came, he was refused and instead respondent was promoted as Technical Officer. The petitioner being aggrieved of the treatment meted out to him by the respondents, filed several representations before the competent authority but in vain. Now he has tapped the doors of this Court through the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Technical Officer as his services are governed by the Regulations of 1981; that petitioner has been 'discriminated as he is the only employee against whom the amended criteria of 1993 has been applied and that promotion of Respondent No, 4 is against law, regulations governing the subject and is a sheer example of favouritism. At the last leg of his arguments, he contended that since the petitioner's institution is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, therefore, refusal on the part of respondent to promote him in accordance with the Regulations of 1981 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
4. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that after amendment in the career Structure in the year 1993, the petitioner's line of promotion changed and due to which he cannot be promoted to the post of Technical Officer being staff working in the Workshop whereas the Respondent No, 4 relates to Laboratory staff whose line of promotion is distinct from the petitioner and as such he was rightly promoted to the post of Technical Officer. The learned counsel further contended that otherwise too, the petitioner cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in that the employees of PCSIR have no statutory rules.
5. We have gone through the record carefully and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. First of all we take up the question of maintainability of the petition. Though the PCSIR is performing its functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation of Pakistan and there is also no denial to the effect that it is an autonomous statutory body but the services of the employees working in this institution are not governed by any statutory rules. When we posted a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner's services are regulated by any statutory rules, his reply was 'no".
7. Admittedly, PCSIR is an autonomous body and its rules are neither approved by the Federal Government, nor published in the official gazette, therefore, its rules are non-statutory in nature.
Thus, in absence of statutory rules, the principle of 'Master and Servant' would be applicable and such employees would be entitled to seek remedy permissible before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, on this point too, the petition in hand is not maintainable. We are fortified in our view by the dicta laid down by the Honourable Court in the cases reported as PLD 2010 Supreme Court - 676 and PLD 2011 Supreme Court - 132 and a judgment of this Court reported as 2011 PLC (C.S) - 259.
8. On merits too, the petitioner has no case on many folds. Firstly, the amendment in the Regulations of 1981 were introduced in the year 1993 and after its amendment, it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that he would be affected by the amended regulations, but he did not challenge the same at that time which conduct on his part is tantamount to his acquiescence.
Secondly, the Respondent No, 4 was promoted in the year 2007, ignoring the petitioner, but he challenged the said promotion order in the year 2009. Had he been vigilant to safeguard his interests, he would have pursued the matter, firstly in the year 1993 when the amendment were introduced and secondly, in the year 2007 when Respondent No, 4 was promoted and he was ignored. There is a famous maxim that "law favours the vigilant and not the indolent". Therefore, petitioner' s petition is also hit by the principle of latches. In support thereof an authority of the Karachi jurisdiction is cited which is reported as 2010 PLC (C.S.) 630 wherein it has been held that in service matters, delay of six months would be normally fatal to the claim of an aggrieved person invoking the constitution jurisdiction.
9.For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition being without substance stands dismissed.