QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.- The instant revision petition by Nadeem Ilyas, petitioner, calls in question the concurrent findings of both the learned trial Court/Civil Judge-XVIII, Peshawar, dated 27.05.2017, and that of the learned appellate Court/Additional District Judge-VIII, Peshawar, dated 22.12.2017, whereby, the former Court dismissed/rejected plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- for his outstanding annual leaves and compensation of Rs.two Million for mental and psychological torture, while the latter Court also dismissed his appeal, mainly, on the ground that the United Nations, including its officials, enjoyed certain privileges and immunities under Article 105 of the Charter of United Nations and that this country had acceded to the General Convention on 22.09.1948 without any reservations.
2. The perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner/plaintif f was appointed as Senior Engineer in the UN office for project services (UNOPS) for recons truction of bridges and irrigation channe ls (RBIC) Project at Kalam for contractual period from 13 April 2015 till 31 December 2015 and was later- on moved to another project on CTG contract for two months i.e. 06.01.2016 to 05.3.2016. However , he resigned from the post of Senior Engineer of UNOPS on 04.02.2016, leaving 22 annua l leaves at his credit, which were recommended in his favour by his line Manager/Project Manager , but the respondents only paid salary for one and half month, which they had stopped earlier , without paying the outstanding annual leaves encashment for the period during which he had performed his duties and had not availed the annual leaves, hence the suit for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- on the aforesaid account, which were, statedly , paid to other similarly placed employees of UNOPS.
3. In a letter to the Registrar of this Court, the Deputy Chief of Protocol of the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Camp-Of fice, Peshawar , the latter conveyed to the former on beha lf of the legal office of the United Nations that the United Nations and its officials were accorded immunity from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case it had expressly waived immunity under Article 2, Section 2 of the General Convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, which was acceded to by Pakistan onth st 22.09.1948. Since the UN legal office was expressly asserting the immunity from the legal process and had declined waiver of immunity in the case, office of Registrar of this Court forwarded the letter to the District & Sessions Judge, Peshawar , who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Court concerned for necessary action in accordance with law/rules. After hearing preliminary arguments on maintainability of the suit, the learned trial Court/Civil Judge-XVIII, Peshawar , rejec ted plaint of the plaintif f; and appeal of the petitioner against order of rejection of his plaint was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court/ADJ-VIII, Peshawar , vide order dated 22.12.2017, which is impugned herein.
4. The UN legal office having expressly asserted immunity from the legal process and having also declined waiver of immunity in the case, the suit of the petitioner/plaintif f for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- on account of outstanding annual leaves and compensation of Rs.two million for mental and psychological torture was not maintainable against the UNOPS and its officials; and was, therefore, rightly dismissed by both the forums below on the ground of maintainability , the learned trial Court having rejected plaint of the plaintif f and the learned appellate Court dismissing appeal of the petitioner .
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during his arguments, was not in a position to either refer to that provision of law or point out any precedent showing entertaining by the Courts in the Country such like suits either against the organization of United Nation or its officials; and, for obvious reasons, case of the petitioner could not be made an exception.
6. The revision petition is, accordingly , dismissed in limine .