IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.--- This Constitutional petition has been filed with the following prayers:-- "(a) To pass order to declare the retirement of the petitioner by the respondent No,2 was illegal and unjust and has no foot to stand in the eyes of law.
(b) To pass order to direct the respondent. No,2 to release the group insurance of Rs,4,00,000 (Rupees Four lacs only) in favour of the petitioner without further delay.
(c) To pass order to direct the respondent No,2 to reinstate the petitioner forthwith after paying him all back-benefits since 2005 till reinstatement of the petitioner.
(d) To pass order to direct the respondents to conduct their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of any act which is ndt permissible under the safeguard provided for the security, dignity and respect of the citizen available under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
(e) To pass order to direct the respondent No,2 to resume the pension of the petitioner without fail.
(g) To pass order for grant of other relief/reliefs which this honourable Court may deem fit and proper."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No,2 and worked as Die Caster. The petitioner suffered with some diseases and thereafter he was retired/ terminated on the ground of his medical disability. The petitioner then approached the respondent No,3 for getting group insurance amount but the respondent No,3 declined the same on the ground that he is medically fit, therefore, the said amount could not be given to him. The petitioner thereafter, moved an application before the Commissioner Workman and Payment of Wages Authority (hereinafter called as Commissioner) which has not been decided yet thereafter the instant petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Effendi; Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner has become a rolling stone as firstly he was retired on the medical ground by the respondent No,2 and when the petitioner approached the respondent No,3 for obtaining group insurance he as declared fit and the said group insurance was declined. He states that the petitioner is in dilemma that whether he is medically fit or not, because if he is a fit person he is entitled for re-instatement in service and if he is medically unfit he is entitled for group insurance but unfortunately the petitioner has been denied both these facilities, which, according to him, is violation of his fundamental rights. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to either re-instate him in service or grant him group insurance amount without any further delay.
4. Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Sario, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No,2 and submitted that this petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has already availed the remedy by way of filing an application before the Commissioner, which is pending, hence, he cannot travel in two boats simultaneously. He, therefore, states that this petition may be dismissed.
5. Mr. Dilawar Hussain, learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent No,1 and has adopted the arguments of Mr. Sario and submitted that this petition is not maintainable since admittedly an application of the petitioner is pending adjudication before the respondent No,4. He has lastly prayed that this petition may be dismissed.
6. We have heard all the learned counsel at considerable length and have perused the record.
7. We specifically asked a question from the counsel for the petitioner that whether his application filed before the Commissioner is pending or not, to which, he replied in affirmative, however he submitted that a considerable time has lapsed after filing of the said application and he is not aware about the latest position of the said application. We again asked a question whether under the circumstances when an application is pending before the Commissioner/respondent No,4 can he file this constitutional petition, to which, he replied that no adequate and efficacious remedy is available with the petitioner that is why he has filed the instant petition. We are of the view that when the petitioner has filed an application before the Commissioner, which admittedly is pending, the petitioner has no legal justification to file the instant petition. Moreover it is the duty of the petitioner to know about the facts obtaining in his case and as to what had happened to his application, if the same is pending before the Commissioner, whether the same is disposed of or not. In both these circumstances, whether the matter is disposed of or pending, in our view, the instant petition is not maintainable. This petition therefore is dismissed along with the listed application.
' Above are the reasons of our short order dated 8-5-2014.