' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner was employed as Librarian(B- 16) in Government Polytechnic Institute for Women/Government Vocational Institute for Women under Women Division vide order dated 11.11.1990 and was posted at Gujranwala.
Subsequently, on achieving Master Degree she was allowed basic pay scale-17. On 01.07.1994, however, the above Institution along with three other institutions were dissolved. Later-on, services of 12 senior gazetted officers of Government Polytechnic Institute were regularized on 06.10.1994. On representation by the petitioner, the Directorate of Technical Education Punjab, Lahore recommended that services of the petitioner be regularized. Meanwhile, services of the other similarly plked employees were regularized but finally vide order dated 17.12.1998 petitioner was informed that proposal of Directorate for regularization of services of the petitioner, could not be accepted, whereupon, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 2726/1999 and this Court vide order dated 23.02.2001 in clear terms observed that:--- "In case the contents of para-7 and reply of para-7 are put in a juxtaposition then it is a case of discrimination which is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution."
' While disposing of said writ petition this Court set aside the order dated 17.12.1998 and directed the Director Technical Education to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Pursuant to the above remand order of this Court, the Director Technical Education on 19.05.2001 passed the fresh order to the following effect:- "After going through the detail of the case it was observed that since the services of no contractual Librarian has been regularized and all the three posts of Librarians have already been filled through Punjab Public Service Commission on regular basis, hence your request for regularization of contract service as Librarian cannot be acceded to."
' Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No, 14484/2001 and this Court vide order dated 02.08.2001 in para-4 observed that:- "The impugned order itself reveals that the same was passed without applying its independent mind by the authority, therefore, same is not sustainable in eyes of law. Even otherwise the impugned order did not reveal that the same was passed in terms of the order of this Court dated 23.2.2001. It is settled principle of law that direction of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State as is envisaged by Article 201 of the Constitution. The impugned order does not reveal that respondent has challenged the vires of the order passed by this Court dated 23.2.2001 before the Division Bench of this Court or before the Honourable Supreme Court."
' Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of, the impugned order was set aside with the observation that representation of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No, 2 and he was directed to decide the representation in accordance with law with reasons in terms of the order of this Court dated 23.2.2001 within two months. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.08.2001, the petitioner again approached the respondent, who vide order dated 28th of September, 2001 declined representation of the petitioner, hence, the instant writ petition.
2. Heard.
3. There is no denial about the fact from either of the side that the first order of this Court dated 23.02.2001 ' passed in Writ Petition No, 2726/1999 was not assailed by the respondent/department before any forum. Similar is the situation about second order of this Court dated 02.08.2001 passed in second Writ Petition No, 14484/2001, thus, by passage of time both of those orders have attained finality and the only question before this Court through the instant writ petition, is the implementation of those orders in letter and spirit. As reproduced.
4. As detailed above this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No, 2726/1999 reproduced para-7 of the writ petition and also quoted reply to the said paragraph submitted by the respondents, and then observed that:- "In case the contents of para-7 and reply of para-7 are put in a juxtaposition then it is a case of discrimination which is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. Public functionaries are duty bound to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution without fear, favour and nepotism. In the same context it was held that "The aforesaid reply of the respondents reveals that petitioner is penalized by the in-action of the respondents. Therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmad Latif's case (PLD 1994 Lahore 3).
' From the above reproduced paragraphs from the initial judgment of this Court, no doubt is left that this Court had remanded the case for its decision afresh after almost setting the legal issue after discussing the aspect of discrimination. It was for the above reason that yet in another Writ Petition No, 14434/2001 this Court vide of dated 02.08.2001 had to again observe that post-remand order had not been passed with application of independent mind and the earlier order this Court dated 23.02.2001 was not complied with in letter and spirit. As discussed above, it is admitted position that both the above orders were never challenged by the respondent department before any forum, thus, it is not open for the respondents to question that those orders were legally or factually not correct. There is no cavil to the proposition that in terms of Article 201 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 direction of this Court is binding on every organ of the State. Furthermore, as per analogy drawn from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Jamil Ahmad v. Saifuddin" (PLD 1992 SC 501), it was incumbent upon the authority to have decided the matter strictly in terms of remand order.
5. By careful perusal of above reproduced extract from the orders passed by this Court in two earlier rounds of litigations, there remains no ambiguity that this Court had held it to be a case of discrimination towards the petitioner, as services of some of her colleagues had been regularized, whereas, the petitioner was left stranded. Thus, after holding that discrimination was least permissible, as it was against the settled norms of justice, the petitioner is surely entitled for regularization of her service.
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 28.09.2001 is set-aside and the respondents are directed to proceed for regularization of service of the petitioner in the light of earlier directions of this Court.