The facts, in brief, leading to the institution of this revision petition are that the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 22-3-1968 before Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur to the effect that pay fixation party had fixed their pay in wrong scale and that they were entitled to the corresponding comparable scale of 320--20--525. They further prayed that their wrong fixation of comparable scale amounted to reduction in rank and it disturbed their seniority. Consequential relief by way of permanent injunction was also prayed for. The necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 3-5-1969 decreed the petitioners' suit and granted declaration that they are entitled to pay scales of 240--10--300--15- -345/15---405--20--525 being corresponding pay scale for the employees of the Central Government transferred to the Provincial Government. They were also granted consequential relief that the defendants should not recover the amount of May already paid to them. Thereafter the petitioners moved an application under sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. For the correction of the decree and the trial Court vide its order dated 6-1-1970 held that the omission was just a slip of pen or clerical mistake and the application was accepted and declared that the plaintiffs were entitled not only to the scale of pay but also were entitled to be grouped while fixing their seniority in the same group of comparable scale of 240---10--300--15--345/15---405--20--525 and the decree was accordingly amended and corrected. Thereafter on the publishing of the new seniority list in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court, Khan Riaz Liaqat and ten others, who were affected by the revised seniority list (not impleaded as respondents in this revision petition) filed an appeal before the Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal), Punjab, Lahore and the abovementioned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 30-4-1971 accepted their appeal and held that: "The order of Civil Court dated 6th January, 1970 is made without jurisdiction and is of no legal effect and as such seniority of the appellants qua respondents has to be determined by the Government by ignoring that order. It is for the Government to determine whether they should at all be integrated with the general cadre, since they were created as a separate cadre distinct from the general cadre.
Since the order of seniority in the impugned seniority list was made in implement of, the order of Civil Court dated 6-1-1970, we set aside the order of seniority so determined and published on the 23 September, 1970 and direct that it shall be re-determined according to the rules in the light of what we have said above."
This order of the Tribunal was not challenged anywhere by the petitioners.
2. The matter was reported in 1993 by the Civil Court on the petitioners' application instituted on 19- 10-1993 for initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents for having not taken any action under the abovementioned judgment and decree of the Civil Court in their favour and made a prayer to the Civil Court in that application for the grant of their due comparable scale of Rs.250/355 and for the re-determination of their seniority as decided by the Civil Court and for the grant of promotion to Senior Class-I posts Grade-18 with effect from 6-3-1971. The Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur vide his order dated 26-9-1994 directed the respondents for implementing the decree and judgment dated 3-5-1969 and strangely enough, also for the implementation of the directions given by the Service Tribunal in its judgment dated 30-4-1971 (wrongly mentioned as 28- 4-1970 in the order) within a period of one month failing which it was ordered by the learned Civil Court that the respondents will be proceeded against under the law for disobeying the order of the Court. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 appealed against the abovesaid order and the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide his judgment and decree dated 30-3-1995 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 26-9-1994 of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur and consequently held that the petition filed by the petitioners is without any substance and dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well-as the learned A.A.-G. At this pre- admission stage and have gone through the documents annexed with this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court became final because it was never challenged by the respondents and, therefore, the Civil Court correctly ordered its implementation. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G., on behalf of the respondent Department, submits that persons who were affected by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court were not party before the Civil Court and when in consequence of the decree of the Civil Court, revised seniority list was furnished, they correctly filed appeal before the Service Appellate Tribunal and in that appeal the petitioners were a party and the Service Tribunal after having considered all the aspects has held as far as back on 30-4-1971 that the Civil Court's decree was without jurisdiction and was of no legal effect and was to be ignored and as such seniority of the appellants before it was to be determined by the Government by ignoring the decree of the Civil Court. The learned A.A.-G. Submits that the decision of the Tribunal became final as the petitioners who were party before it never challenged the same and illegally and in a mala fide manner moved an application after twenty-to years of the decision of the Service Appellate Tribunal, to Civil Court on 19-10-1993 for the implementation of its decree dated 3-5-1969 which was not maintainable and the First Appellate Court correctly accepted the respondents' appeal and set aside the order dated 26-9-1994 of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur whereby a direction was issued to the respondents for the implementation of its decree dated 3-5-1969.
5. The First Appellate Court has correctly held that the petitioners/plaintiffs did not file any appeal against the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal and it became final and in my opinion the petitioners are trying to nullify the effect of the decision rendered by the Service Tribunal in a malard fide manner by having moved a miscellaneous application before the Civil Court. The petitioners had the remedy of an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Service Tribunal and the Civil Court in this regard had no jurisdiction over and above the judgment of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on certain observations made by the Service Appellate Tribunal while holding that the decree of the Civil Court was without jurisdiction and according to the learned counsel those observations are in favour of the petitioners and the same should be implemented. Suffice it to say that if any direction/observation is not being followed/implemented in letter and spirit by the Department, then the petitioners have remedies available to them under the law by way of Departmental appeal/representation and on failing thereof they can approach the service Tribunal.
6. In view of the abovementioned, I see no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed in limine.