' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This petition under Article 187(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by Muhammad Akram Khan, applicant, seeks issuance of "necessary direction to the appellant-bank, respondents Nos.2 and 3 to implement, enforce and execute the order of this Court dated 11-12-1990" passed in the above-cited appeal "in its entirety" in order to do complete justice in the case to promote the applicant.
2. The applicant feeling aggrieved of his supersession and imposition of penalty dated 30-12-1986 filed Writ Petition No,133 of 1989 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The writ petition. It appears, was accepted vide judgment dated 28-6-1989 and, according to the applicant, the order dated 30-12- 1986 of the authorities of the appellant-bank was declared toffee been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect "with consequential benefits". The appellant-bank challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court through Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 522-R of 1989 before this Court. The leave sought for was granted to the appellant-bank vide order dated 23-10-1989. Civil Appeal No, 505 of 1989 as numbered consequent to the grant of leave was ultimately dismissed by this Court vide order passed on 11-12-1990. Review Petition No, 8 of 1991 filed by the appellant-bank was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6-12-1991. The applicant then moved the Lahore High Court for contempt proceedings as the authorities of the appellant-bank were hesitant to abide by the orders of this Court. The High Court dismissed the application as aforesaid on 10-7-1991 on the ground that "since the order of the High Court had merged in that of this Court dated 11-12-1990 proceedings in Contempt would more appropriately lie before this Court". In the meantime Wafaqi Mohtasib on motion of the applicant, passed an order on 21-11-1991 directing the appellant-bank to restore his seniority by complying with the final judge of this Court dated 11-12-1990. The appellant-bank challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No,D-1683 of 1991 before the Sindh High Court at Karachi on the ground that Wafaqi Mohtasib had no jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition was accepted vide order dated 19-5-1992 whereby the order passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib dated 21-11-1991 was declared to be without lawful authority. Two appeals in this Court were filed against the judgment of the Sindh High Court through Civil Petitions Nos.249 and 310 of 1992 respectively by Wafaqi Mohtasib and the applicant-respondent No,1. The operative part of the order passed on the Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal dated 27-10-1993 reads as under:-- "After hearing the learned4ounsel for the parties we find that these petitions have now become only of academic interest. It appears that Muhammad Akram Khan had also moved a petition before Prime Minister of Pakistan challenging the order of the Board of Directors of the respondent- Bank promoting him as Executive Vice-President with effect ' from 1-1-1988. This representation was favourably considered by the Prime Minister who was pleased to issue a directive that 'the promotion of Mr. Muhammad Akram Khan as Executive Vice-President be and is hereby antedated to 1-1-1982.' This directive of the Prime Minister has since been duly approved by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank and the following Resolution adopted namely: `Resolved that 'the promotion of Mr. Muhammad Akram Khan as Executive Vice-President be and is hereby antedated to 1-1-1982'."
' This resolution was adopted sometimes in March. 1993 i,e, after the passing of the order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib dated 21-11-1991 and the impugned judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 19-5-1992. Now the main grievance of Muhammad Akram Khan stands removed as he prayed in his writ petition that he be restored from senior Vice-President to Executive Vice- President with effect from 1-1-1982. This has now been ordered by the Bank itself."
(4) According to the appellant-bank, the relief granted by the High Court in the petition did not imply that it was accepted "as prayed for therein." It was further urged that the prayer as made in the original petition in general and that of grant of consequential benefits was to be construed in the light of deletion by the applicant of respondents Nos. 4 to 26 whose promotion and seniority was likely to be affected by the grant thereof. It was averred that the matter relating to the seniority and promotion involved large many considerations to be weighed and seen in juxtaposition with those whose seniority and promotion were also initially challenged by the applicant before the High Court and later dropped by hide It was also noted that the applicant having remained on leave from 29-10-1973 to 16-1-1987, he was promoted as Executive Vice-President with effect from 1- 1-1988 which had since been antedated to 1-1-1982 on the orders of the Prime Minister. The assertion qua violation of the order of this Court was emphatically controverted and it was urged that "what was due the applicant in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Lahore and this Court was given to him". The stance of the Bank lastly was that "in matters of promotion large many considerations have to be seen by the competent Authority which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts" and further that the applicant had also been promoted to the rank of Senior Executive Vice-President with effect from 1-1-1993." The claim of the applicant for appointment as Member, Board of Directors was controverted as untenable, in that, it was "a matter of selection and appointment in the exclusive discretion of the Government which owns the Bank".
(5)From the respective averments of the parties the crucial question that emerged for determination is: what relief was granted to the applicant by the Lahore High Court while allowing his writ petition.
(6)The prayer clause of the Constitutional petition is as follows:-- "That the order of imposition of penalty dated 30-12-1986 be declared to be null and void and having been pased in the absence of any lawful authority, restoring all consequential and back, benefits to him including seniority and promotion and that his seniority be restored visa-a-visa respondents Nos.4 to 26 ast5nder:-- ' From Senior Vice-President to Executive Vice-Presikient.-4-1-1982 ' From Executive Vice-President to Senior Executive Vice-President.1-1-1984.
' To Director, Board of Directors, National Bank of Pakistan. 1-1-1988."
' The High Court had granted relief to the petitioner in paragraph No,8 of its judgment which reads as under:-- "Since the opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner by the competent Authority before infliction of punishment, the writ petition is accepted with consequential benefits and order dated 30-12-1986 is declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and is set aside." . From a bare reading of the relief claimed by the applicant and that granted by the learned Judge in Chamber, it becomes abundantly clear that the "Writ was accepted with consequential benefits" and "the order dated 30-12-1986 imposing penalty was declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and was set aside". Now according to the applicant 'consequential benefits' granted to him covered "all consequential and back benefits". The ratio deducible from the judgment of the High Court clearly is that "writ petition was accepted with "consequential benefits" only and not "all consequential and back benefits'." His relief part "including his seniority and promotion and that the seniority of the petitioner be restored visa-a- is a respondents Nos.4 to 26 " was not granted nor it could be so granted after deletion of respondents Nos.4 to 26. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that fixation of seniority and grant of promotion squarely falls within the discretion of the competent Authority after taking into consideration a number of factors including the rights of others who would also be affected. In the instant case, rights of respondent Nos.4 to 26 were being affected whose names were deleted from the array of the respondents. By getting deletion of their names the applicant had himself been guilty of foregoing the relief of seniority and promotion. He would, therefore, be estopped to claim the promotions to the posts and the date from which he was entitled thereto particularly after his promotion as Executive Vice-President had been ante-dated from 1-1-1988 to 1-1-1982 under the orders of the Prime Minister. He has since been promoted to the rank of Senior Executive ti'ice- President w,e,f, 1-1-1993. The stand of the appellant-bank that matter of selection and appoint lent as Member, Board of Directors is in the exclusive discretion of the competent Authorities is sustained.
7. Besides, the effect of penultimate paragraph of the judgment of this Court in Civil Petitions Nos.
249 and 310 of 1992 reproduced in para.3 ante and particularly the last two sentences of the afore- quoted paragraph that "now the main grievance of Muhammad Akram Khan stands removed as he had prayed I in his writ petition that he be restored from Senior Vice-President to Executive Vice- President with effect from 1-1-1982. This has now been ordered by the Bank itself' has clarified the matter to the hilt.
8. The applicant may, if he is so advised, raise his claim qua his seniority and promotion in a separate petition after impleading all those officers who have superseded him.
9. With these observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. .