' The facts leading to this petition are that Nazim Hussain Shah had filed a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) read with sections 22-B and 15 of the I. R.
0., 1969 praying that the order removing the petitioner from Yard duty precluding him from serving as duty clerk be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to work as duty clerk. Alongwith this petition, the petitioner filed an application under Regulation 32 of the N. I. R. C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 read with section 151, C. P. C. For suspension of the operation of the impugned order pending final disposal of the main petition. The Commission had directed on 26th December, 1984 that the impugned order be not implemented pending confirmation or otherwise on 20th January, 1985.
2. After hearing arguments, the orders were reserved on 20th January, 1985 and status quo was directed to be maintained. The order dated 26th December, 1985 was however confirmed on 23rd January, 1985 and it was directed that Order No, 497, dated 22nd December, 1984 issued by the Traffic Manager, P. U. T. C., Ichhra Depot, Lahore shall remain suspended and shall not be implemented till the final decision of the main petition. The stay application was accordingly disposed.
3. On 24th January, 1985 the posts of duty clerks in all the depots of P. U. T. C. Were abolished by respondent No, 1 with immediate effect. The petitioner filed two applications against the said order one is a contempt application and the other this present application praying that the operation of the impugned order abolishing the posts of duty clerks, dated 24th January, 1985 may be suspended till the final disposal of the main petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. He states that if the operation of the impugned order is not stopped the status of the main petition would be reduced to a nullity. I do not agree with this contention. Since impugned order viz. That of abolition of posts of duty clerks had already been passed on 24th January, 1985 no status quo ante could be issued against that order. Consequently, the titled petition is dismissed.