' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.--- Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court by way of filing instant writ petition with the following prayer:- "It is respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and law mentioned hereinabove this Hon. High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to implement the binding recommendations dated 16-4-2011, Annexure K, for fixations of seniority with all benefits since July, 2005 of the petitioners made by five member Committee constituted in the 2nd meeting of Joint Works Council.
2. AND presented the facts as under:--- ' The petitioners along with other contractual employees although appointed in July, 2005 after written test and interviews were regularized and placed as garde-III Journalists after undergoing afresh test and interview in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble apex Court in Civil Appeal No,46 of 2009. After regularization, petitioners submitted several applications to the respondent No,2 praying that their seniority may be fixed since July, 2005 with all benefits admissible under the rules. In reply, petitioners were asked to provide the relevant papers which they submitted accordingly. It is contended that as per law a five member committee was cbnstituted to review the seniority list of Grade-III journalists in the light of the decision of the courts; in order to rectify the anomalies. The five members committee after thorough examination of documents and legal opinion from lawyers, made several recommendation inclusive that the journalists who joined the organization in July, 2005 be given the seniority and pay protection from the date of their appointment but the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are keeping the decision of seniority pending without any justification or reason and the petitioners are being deprived of their legal rights for fixation of seniority with all benefits admissible under the service rules as well as their further promotion.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that respondent Nos.3 to 23 were regularized in APP in 2007 therefore, they have no locus standi to claim any seniority over the petitioners and other journalists who joined the organization in July, 2005 after successfully passing all Pakistan examination. Further the Senate Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting has already expressed its reservation regarding violations of Rules and Regulations made in the appointment process of the referred 21 respondents in 2007 against regularized posts. That illegal appointment of over 33 out of 64 candidates during the recruiting process of 2007 has also been highlighted by this court in its judgment but the management of APP did not take any action. It is further contended that those respondents who were inducted in 2007 cannot claim any seniority or service benefits for which petitioners are entitled as they were working since 2005 and regularized after the verdict, without assigning any probation period.
4. Conversely, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed their reply and parawise comments and inter alia raised following preliminary objections:---
(i) That writ is not maintainable under the law, the petitioners have not locus standi or cause of action against the answering respondents and even otherwise, petitioners have not availed alternate/adequate and efficacious remedy available to them under the law, hence the writ is liable to be dismissed. That, the service rules of the APPC are having non-statutory character, therefore, writ is not maintainable in light of case-law reported as 1992 SCMR 1093, 2007 PLC (C.S.)
138, 2009 PLC (C.S.) 565, 2010 SCMR 1484 and 2011 SCMR 944. That, even otherwise, Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the reported judgment cited as PLD 2007 SC 681 in case titled Muhammad Idris v. ZTBL, has held that after abatement of proceedings form S.C. As well as from FST in pursuance of the judgment given in the Mubeen-ul-Salam's case PLD 2006 SC 602, the aggrieved employees of the corporation wherein the rules are non- statutory, would seek their remedy before the proper forum available to them under the law and those who are employed in statutory corporations would seek their remedy before FST.
(ii) that instant petition is hit by laches as the petitioners were regularized w,e,f, 2-10-2009 whereas instant petition has been filed after a lapse of more than 2 and 1/2 years, hence liable to be dismissed.
(iii) That the petitioners are stopped by their conduct under the Principle of Estoppel, as they have accepted their regularization w,e,f, 2-10-2009, without any reservation or protest whatsoever, hence cannot agitate the issue which has already been acted upon and has become a past and closed transaction.
5. On facts, it is inter alia contended by the respondents that the services of the petitioners were regularized in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No,46 of 2009 through departmental selection committee and they were placed on the of the seniority list of grade-III journalists, as per seniority rules in connection with new regular appointees.
That under the relevant rules they were fresh appointees w,e,f, 2-10-2009 in grade-III (BS-16) in journalistic cadre on regular basis and their seniority could not be fixed higher than the other regular employees who have already been working in the journalistic cadre prior to 2-10-2009. It is contended that APPC Management setup a Joint Work Council (JWC) at APPC, Islamabad Headquarters through office order in terms of the provisions existed in the Industrial Relations Ordinance on experimental basis. A five member committee was constituted to review the seniority list of grade-III journalists in connection with the seniority positions under the rules. The recommendations of JWC were placed before the competent authority who observed that recommendations are not made in accordance with the Establishment Code Rules, 2007 and furthermore, the opinion of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be termed as legal opinion of the Corporation as it is biased, unilateral, and partial and against the settled principles of law. That, the petitioners cannot claim ante-dation of their seniority as a matter of right, they have not come with clean hands and are not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
' Learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 23 adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 lnd 2.
' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the pleadings.
6. In my estimation, it is a matter which has already been resolved by august Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20-5-2009, passed in Civil Petition No,46 of 2009 titled as "Yawar Abbass and others v. Federation of Pakistan etc." For convenience para 6 of above mentioned judgment is being reproduced, hereunder; "We are not in a position to observe anything with regard to their service etc. Or previous seniority pre-qualifying of the test and interview. However, if they apply for test and interview, the department shall complete the process for purpose of their regularization with two months, however, if they are successful in getting regularization they would be free in approaching the department for claiming their service benefits in accordance with the rules, if permitted."
' By following the above command, petitioners went through the process and their services were regularized w,e,f, 2-10-2009. But their grievance of "service benefits" including seniority was not redressed; therefore, in the light of direction of august Supreme Court (supra) they sapproached the department. Since matter was required to be resolved, therefore, department constituted five members committee, consisting of following members to give recommendations:---
(i) Mr. Muhammad Akram Malik, Director (News) (Acting)
(ii) Mr. Mamlook Hussain, Manager (Administration)
(iii) Mr. Mazhar A. Veesar, Manager (Human Resource)
(iv) Mr. Bilal Taheem, President, APPEU
(v) Mr. Muhammad Qamash Khan, General Secretary, APPEU ' Committee held its meetings on 16th April, 2011 and gave the recommendations vide Memorandum No,F.222/2011-Admn, dated 27-4-2011 as under:--- The journalists who joined the organization in July, 2005 be given the seniority and pay protection from the date of appointment.
' In view of the financial constraints of the organization the journalists who joined in July, 2005 have already given an undertaking that they would not claim any arrears.
' With regard to the induction of the qualified and competent employees within the organization the committee recommends that the department may treat their seniority from the date they were transferred in the journalistic grade through an office order.
' However the committee is of the view that these employees would not claim any financial benefits from the back date.
7. Problem started thereafter, when department for some unknown reasons, failed to take any decision on the recommendations. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 vehemently argued that these recommendations are not binding and department is not supposed to pass any order on the same. I must observe that this approach of the department, conveyed through the learned counsel is not only contemptuous but unprecedented as well. Petitioners approached the department in accordance with the directions of august Supreme Court, Committee constituted by department and recommendations conveyed on 27th April, 2011. Now, department cannot be allowed to take U turn and say that committee was not properly constituted and its recommendation are not binding. It is important to note that department did not challenge the constitution of committee, its mandate and recommendations, rather with mala fide intention sat over the recommendations. This act of the department is rarity and uncalled for. Out of five members of committee, three were of department and role of committee, in peculiar situation was not less than of Referee. Judgments relied by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not applicable to the present case. It is important to mention here that learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 23 conceded that department is supposed to pass some order on the recommendations.
' In this view of the matter, instant petition is allowed and respondent are directed to follow/implement the recommendation of five members committee, conveyed vide memorandum No,F.222/2011- Adman, dated 27th April, 2011 within 15 days of the receipt of instant judgment.