' MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction that representation dated 3-7-2013 filed by the petitioner may be replied to and that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 should not disturb the seniority of the petitioner by giving promotion to the respondents from 8-4-2013.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Engineer PTV Centre Mehmood Ghaznavi Road, Lahore on 30-4-1987 and was confirmed at that post on 30-7-1987. He was allowed to function as a News Producer 1-9-2006 and was re-designated to the post of News Producer/Reporter with effect from 8-4-2007. He was promoted as News Producer and Reporter G- 6 with effect from 8-4-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents Nos.5 to 41 are being promoted with effect from 8-4-2010 which promotion if granted will affect the seniority of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this act of the respondents is contrary to the rules and has relied upon sections 4.02, 4.07 and Chapter 8 of the Pakistan Television Employees Service Rules. Learned counsel argued that pursuant to a judgment dated 4-11-2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No,48 of 2009, respondents Nos.5 to 41 were granted relief, however the petitioner was not heard before the said Bench and his grievance could not be put up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. He also argued that the petitioner moved a representation before the respondents Nos.1 to 4 on which no positive action has taken place. He argued that if the respondents Nos.5 to 11 are given the seniority from 8-4-2010, it will adversely affect the seniority of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 is not present today but had previously argued his case on the last date wherein he had stated that the representation of the petitioner could be decided in accordance with law and that the respondents Nos.5 to 41 are being treated in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents Nos.5 to 10, 13, 14, 16 to 18, 26 and 34 at the very outset raised an objection that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed; he is not entitled to the decision on any representation and he is not entitled to the relief whereby he required the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to be restrained from disturbing his seniority. Learned counsel argued that the entire petition is based on an apprehension which is repeatedly stated in the petition itself. He argued that as such no seniority list has been made and a bare reading of the petition will show that the petitioner on the basis of an apprehension that his seniority will be disturbed has filed the instant petition. Learned counsel argued that the petition is not maintainable when it is based on an apprehension; no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of which the instant petition has been filed and no right of the petitioner has been infringed. Further argued that the petitioner requires that the entire process as heard and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan be ignored by the respondents and the seniority be determined as per the wishes of the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that the matter was heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No,48 of 2009 wherein it was decided that respondents Nos.5 to 41 were regularly appointed on probation for a period of two years from 20-2-2006 where-after their probation period has not been extended. Further argued that the respondents were not issued their permanent employment letters, hence it was decided that the permanent employment letters should be issued to those who have completed their probationary period. Learned counsel argued that pursuant to this decision, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 had failed to implement the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan whereafter the respondents went before the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court in W.P No,1556 of 2011 which decided that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has to be implemented. Thereafter the respondents Nos.5 to 41 had to file a contempt petition pursuant to which the respondents Nos.1 to 4 issued permanent employment letters.
Learned counsel further argued that a bare reading of the petition shows that so far no seniority list has been made and that the grievance of the petitioner is pre-emptive and designed to nullify the effect and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Learned counsel further argued that in any event notwithstanding the arguments raised the instant petition is not maintainable as the rules being relied upon by the petitioner are not statutory rules.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
6. The basic issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction on the basis of which the respondents Nos.1 to 4 would be restrained from disturbing the seniority of the petitioner as maintained. I have reviewed the petition and find that the petitioner has repeatedly stated that the instant petition has been filed on the basis of an apprehension that his seniority will be disturbed.
Furthermore the request of the petitioner that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 should maintain the seniority of the petitioner is a prayer which cannot be granted at this stage as no seniority list has been made after the issuance of appointment letters and permanent employment of the respondents Nos.5 to 41 as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 are obligated to implement the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and Hon'ble Islamabad .High Court. The learned counsel for petitioner also requested that his representation be decided, however Malik Amjad Pervaiz, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.5 to 10, 13, 14, 16 to 18, 26 and 34 has objected to such a direction as he stated that the matter in issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistgn and the petitioner is trying to take a direction from this Court to undo the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. I have reviewed the representation of the petitioner which is pending and on which he seeks a direction. I find that the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 to 10, 13, 14, 16 to 18, 26 and 34 is correct that the petitioner is in fact seeking the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to review the entire matter and to determine the date on the basis of which the respondents Nos.5 to 41 will be granted their appointment letter. This matter was agitated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and it was decided that the respondents Nos.5 to 41 should be appointed if they have completed their probationary period. The issue of seniority inter se the petitioner and the respondents has still not been decided as the respondents Nos.1 to 4 have not issued the seniority list. At this point in time only appointment letters which have been issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The grievance of the petitioner at this stage regarding seniority is premature and the petitioner may if so advised, seek appropriate remedy if his seniority is adversely affected once a list is made, before the competent forum.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed.