' Through the instant Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 23.06.2015 passed in Writ Petition No,13117/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner being not maintainable.
2. Brief facts revealing from the instant appeal are that the Appellant was appointed as Area Manager on 31.08.1978 but due to his ill health he resigned from services on medical ground on 16.07.1989. Thereafter the Appellant applied for his pensionary benefits which were, declaimed on the ground that his resignation was accepted without recommendations of the Medical Board.
Feeling aggrieved thereby he moved complaint before the Federal Ombudsman in the year 2011 which later on was withdrawn by the Appellant and filed the Writ Petition No,13117/2012.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order is against law and facts and is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate fact that the Appellant applied for retirement on medical ground and was entitled to pensionary benefits but the same has been misinterpreted as resignation; that it was the department who was duty bound to send the matter to Medical Board which it did not, hence the Appellant should not suffer due to the wrong of the department; that the learned Single Judge has also ignored the fact that the Appellant had completed his 10 years of service before retirement on medical ground.
4, Arguments heard and record perused.
5. From the perusal for record it reveals that the after denial of pensionary benefits from the Respondents the Appellant approached the Federal Ombudsman in the year 2011 through a complaint which was subsequently withdrawn on 17.01.2012 through an application (Annexure-J) appended with the writ petition, to avail the remedy before the Civil Court in Civil Suit No,F-1411/2011.
We agree with the findings of the learned Single judge who in the impugned order has rightly observed that when the Appellant has already availed an alternate remedy to get the same relief by filing civil suit, the writ petition was not competent before this Court. Learned Single Judge has also rightly observed that the writ petition was hit by laches as the Appellant approached this Court in the year 2012 against his grievance arose in the year 1989. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Aviation Authority v. Zulfiqar Ali, (2016 SCM R 183) set aside the Order of the High Court in allowing the delayed writ of the Respondent, who was an employee of Civil Aviation Authority, was de-hired from service on account of his illness. Ten years after his de-hiring the Respondent filed the constitutional petition before the High Court for regularization of his service which was allowed by the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the said petition suffered from laches and ought to have been dismissed for having been filed after a lapse of about 10 years and that too without any justification or explanation for such delay.
6. We do not see any illegality in the impugned order which has been passed strictly in accordance with law, as such does not warrant any interference by us. Consequently, the Appear in hand, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine.