Through this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for following relief: "It is respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may graciously be accepted and a writ may kindly be issued by declaring the impugned order dated 06,01.2017 as illegal and unlawful and be set aside and in consequence thereof, the respondent organization may kindly be directed to treat the petition ers in Executive Group-Ill w.e.f 01.07,2003 and in EG-IV w.e.f 01.07.2008 and the respondent organization may also kindly be directed to consider the petitioners for promotion in EG-V w.e.f, 01.07.2013, with all consequential back benefits, as per promotion criteria (i.e. minimum 05 years service with good record in next below cadre) in the interest of justice.
It is also prayed that during the pendenc y of the writ petition, the respondents may kindly be directed not to take any adverse action against the interests or the petitioners, in the interest of justice.
Any other relief; which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate, may also be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed as Senior Engineers (Civil) in the years 1995-1996 in OGDCL and later on they were promoted to Executive Cadre-II in the year 2003 and in the Executive Grade-III in the year 2008, however , they were not promoted to Executive Grade-III as per principles laid down by the Apex Court in judgment reported as 2011 SCMR 1912 (Syed Tahir Abbas Shah vs. OGDCL through M.D. Head Office, Islamabad and anoth er), when their five years period was compl eted w.e.f. 2003 and as such they are further entitled to place in Executive Grade-IV after completion of the necessary period. He further contends that promotion given to Respo ndents No. 2 to 11 is illegal and in violation of settled principles of law, especially when the said respondents are juniors to the petitioners, who have been given extra benefit in order to deprive the petitioners from their legitimate right.
3. Conversely , learned counsel for OGDCL as well as counsel for private respondents contend that Respondents No, 2 to 11 were given benefit of promotion on 16.02.2015 by the respondent company and their seniority has been considered from the date of their initial appointment in the company and as such this order has been assailed through the instant writ petition in the year 2017 after two long years, therefore, instant writ petition is not maintainable. It has further been contend ed that the petitioners were inducted in OGDCL/respondent company in the staff cadre as supervisors in PS-15, who are Non-Management Group Employees, were promoted to Executive Grade-I, whereas, petitioners were promoted to Executive Grade-II instead of Executive Grade-I w.e.f. 01.07.2003 as special consideration. It is further submitted that in formal course, the petitioners were in NMG-PS-15 and they could only be promoted, to NMG-PS-16 and then onward to EG-I, but they have been accommodated in the EG-II and as such they are juniors to the private respondents, who have been give regularization-af fect from back date, where-after they .have been promoted by the competent authority and as such no illegality has been committed by Respondent No. 1.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. From the perusal of the record, it reveal, that entire case of the petitioners revolves around the regularization affect given to the private respondents and their promotion for EG-IV and EG-III, respectively .
6. In order to consider case of the petitioners, I have gone through the appointment record of the petitioners which reveals that Petitioner No. 1/Shaukat Hayat Awan was appointed on 29.01.1995, petitioner No. 2/Jameel Ahmed was appointed on 03.03.1996, Petitioner No. 3/Muhammad Altaf was appointed on 02.11.1995 and Petitioner No. 4/Bashir Ahmad was appointed on 03.03.1996 as Senior Engineers (Civil) In the respondent company/OGDCL, in NMG-PS-15, who could not be promoted to EG-II, but their cases were considered under special consideration, whereby they were promoted to EG-II instead of EG-I w.e.f. 1.7.2003, although staff members of Non- Management. Grade-15 could have been promoted to Executive Grade-I only, contrary to that Respondents No. 2 to 11 were appointed higher to petitioners, as Junior Engineers in the year 2007 and later on their services were regularized, even otherwise all these respondents are qualified engineering graduates, whereas, the petitioners are only diploma holders and there is a mark difference in their qualifications, in result whereof, Respondents No. 2 to 4 were appointed in EG-IV and later on prom oted to EG-V , whereas, Respondents No, 5 to 11 were appointed in EG- III.
7. Respondents No, 2 to 11 in the year 2013 filed W.P. No. 2253/2013 for regulari zation of their services from the date of their initial appointment and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.4.2015 with direction to respondent company to implement decision of OGDCL Board taken in 169th meeting dated 4.2.2015 qua the services of said respondents within a period of sixty days, as result whereof, benefit of regularization has been extended to said respondents and they have been declared eligible for promotion on the basis of performance.
8. Record also reveals that the order dated 4.2.2015 passed by the OGDCL Board had not been assailed by the petitioners within reasonable time and as such there is no cavil to proposition that the respondents are senior to the petitioners in all respects, even their qualification are better than the petitioners.
9. The above referred position reveals that the competent authority has rightly dealt with the question of regularization of services of the private respondents, which could not be assailed at this stage by the petitioners, .as the case of the such employees would be hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction and same could not be reopened, in any manner . Reliance is placed upon case reported as 2003 SCMR 1115 (Zulfiqar-ul-Husnain and 19 others vs. Oil and Gas Development Corporation ). As such the petitioners have failed to prove their case within four corners of law for the purpose of their promotion/seniority , viz-a-viz claim of the private respondents.
10. The entire background of this case reveals that Respondents No. 2 to 11 were contractual employees, who were given regularization from the date of their initial appointment vide order dated 4.2.2015 made in 169th meeting of the respondent Board, even otherwise, the Managing Director is authorized to regularize the contract employees up to EG-V , as and when they have completed one year contractual service and meet the criteria referred in the Rules and it is not the case of the petitioners that Respondents No. 2 to 11 are not fit for the purpose of promotion.
11. While considering this background, petitioners have no case on merit, there fore, instant writ petition stands Dismissed.