Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Ghiasuddin, impugns the judgment dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West whereby his appeal against order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad, was dismissed. Vide the said order dated 22.02.2023, the learned Civil Court had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.") for temporary injunction against Office Orders dated 23.08.2021 and 08.03.2022 issued by Indus River System Authority (IRSA).
2. The facts essential for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner is an employee of IRSA. He was serving in IRSA as Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-18) when on application of Mr. Mahmood Ali, Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-17) an Inquiry Committee was constituted. On the recommendation of the said Inquiry Committee, vide office order dated 23.08.2021, the petitioner was reverted to his original cadre and placed as Assistant (BPS-11). On 20.09.2021, the petitioner filed departmental representation against the office order dated 23.08.2021 which was dismissed vide office order dated 08.03.2022. On 21.02.2023, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration, mandatory, perpetual and temporary injunction wherein he had assailed the IRSA's above said office orders dated 23.08.2021 and 08.03.2022. Along with the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. for suspension of the operation of IRSA's office orders dated 23.08.2021 and 08.03.2022. Vide the order dated 22.02.2023, learned Civil Court dismissed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction inter alia on the ground that he did not implead necessary party, i.e. Mahmood Ali on whose seniority claim the order for petitioner's reversion to lower post was issued. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by learned Civil Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 13.03.2023. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after his reversion to lower scale, he had filed writ petition No.4229/2021 before this Court; that the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2021 and a direction was issued to IRSA to decide the petitioner's representation; that the office order dated 23.08.2021 for the petitioner's reversion was passed with the approval of the Chairman, IRSA, therefore, the petitioner filed the representation to IRSA Authority which under Section 4 of the Indus River System Authority Act, 1992 ("the 1992 Act") consists of five members in addition to the Chairman, IRSA; that vide the office order dated 08.03.2022, the petitioner's representation was declined with the approval of Chairman, IRSA who alone does not constitute the IRSA Authority; that vide IRSA's letter dated 27.07.1999, the petitioner was transferred to the Common Service cadre and was posted as Caretaker with the approval of IRSA Authority; that vide office order dated 22.08.2000, the petitioner was re-designated as Caretaker on regular basis; that subsequently the petitioner was promoted to BPS-17 and upgraded to BPS-18 vide office orders dated 08.09.2004 and 01.10.2010, respectively; that from the year 1999 to 2020, the petitioner has been working in Common Service cadre as Caretaker; that vide office order dated 28.08.2020, the petitioner was transferred to Accounts Section against vacant post of Budget and Account Officer (BPS-18); that after the petitioner having been regularly re-designated as Caretaker, his seniority was not common with other officers of Accounts Section including Mr. Mahmood Ali; that the learned Courts below fell in grave error by observing about the necessity to implead the said Mr. Mahmood Ali; that delegation of power by the Authority to Chairman under Section 14 of the 1992 Act can only be made through a specific or general order; and that the impugned concurrent orders passed by learned Courts below are not in accordance with law and facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the petition to be allowed in terms of the relief prayed therein.
4. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his able assistance.
5. The record shows that foremost reason for the petitioner's reversion from a post of BPS-18 to a post of BPS-16 as given in the office order dated 23.08.2021 is that Mr. Mahmood Ali, Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-17) was senior to him. Since in his suit, the petitioner has assailed the said office order dated 23.08.2021, Mr. Mahmood Ali being catalyst for issuance of the said office order and potentially aggrieved person from the consequence of suit was a necessary party and was incumbent upon the petitioner to have impleaded the said necessary party. The learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court observed that the said Mr. Mahmood Ali is a necessary party in the suit instituted by the petitioner. Now where a party is observed by the Court to be necessary party his non-impleadment would result in rejection of plaint.
6. The office order dated 22.08.2000 prima facie shows that the petitioner was officiating Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-16) when he was designated as Caretaker on regular basis till further orders. The petitioner was posted in the Accounts Section vide office order dated 28.08.2020 when an inquiry on the complaint of Mr. Mahmood Ali was conducted. The impugned judgment dated 13.03.2023 shows that the Inquiry Committee discovered that the approval of competent authority for the petitioner's appointment against the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer was not available on record and that there was only one post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer against which only Mr. Mahmood Ali could have been promoted being senior to the petitioner. Since the Inquiry Committee had observed that at the time of the petitioner's postings and promotions illegalities and non-fulfillment of eligibility requirements were committed, I am of the opinion that necessary ingredients for the grant of interim injunction cannot be said to have co-existed in the present case.
7. Additionally, in revision under Section 115 C.P.C. jurisdiction of this Court is not of a second appeal rather the revisional power is attracted only where a jurisdictional infirmity or material irregularity is found in the impugned orders passed by lower fora. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate a jurisdictional error or material legal infirmity in the impugned orders concurrently rejecting his application for interim inunction. In the case of Sardar Kamal ud Din Khan Vs. Syed Munir Syed (2002 SCMR 806), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "The exercise of revisional powers is circumscribed by section 115 of the Code. Clauses (a) and
(b) are attracted when jurisdiction, which is vested in a court, is not exercised or when jurisdiction is not vested in a court yet the court assumes jurisdiction. And, clause (c) is with regard to a court exercising jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Conversely, when the order of a subordinate court is within its jurisdiction and such court has not exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. The power of revision cannot be used by a higher court to substitute its own discretion or authority."
8. In view of the above, I have not found a jurisdictional error or material illegality in the impugned concurrent judgments / orders dated 13.03.2023 and 22.02.2023. This petition is therefore dismissed in limine.