AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 8-5-1993 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in I.C.A. No. 175 of 1993 filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 10-4-1993 of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissing petitioner's Writ Petition No. 6817 of 1991, declining the same in limine.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was working as an Eye Surgeon in the Data Darbar Hospital, Lahore. He tendered his resignation from service on 1-2-1980, which was accepted by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf on 1-5-1980. However the case of the petitioner was that before the acceptance of his resignation he had withdrawn the same. Be that as it may, a controversy arose whether factually Illegally the petitioner had withdrawn the above resignation. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5154 of 1987 alleging therein that he had withdrawn the resignation but in spite of that the respondents were treating him as having resigned. The above writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by a judgment-dated 1-3-1988. Against the aforesaid judgment the petitioner filed I.C.A. No.32 of 1988, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 12-2-1990 as under:-- .... It is not necessary to examine the matter further to view of the statement made by Mr. Riaz Kiani learned counsel for the respondents that Auqaf Department is prepared to accept the petitioner as fresh recruit without any financial liability or claim for seniority. The petitioner has accepted this offer. Even otherwise we find that the appellant is not entitled to back benefits in that he was admittedly working in Jalal-ud-Din Trust Hospital after his resignation was accepted by the Department. As to the petitioners claim for counting his past service towards competent Authority which we have no doubt,
4. The result is that the petitioner shall be appointed as a fresh appointed forthwith in the same grade in which he left on 1-2-1980. To this extent the appeal is accepted but there shall be no orders as to costs. -
3. It appears that pursuant to the above consent order respondent No. 1 issued order dated 12-5- 1990 which read as follows:-- However on 11-7-1990 the following fresh order was issued:-- Against the above second order the petitioner filed aforesaid Writ Petition No. 6817 of 1991 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through the above judgment dated 10-4-1993.
Thereupon the petitioner filed aforementioned I.C.A., which was declined by the impugned order.
The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. In support of the above petition, Mr. M. Dilawar Mahmood, learned Sr. ASC appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent No.Vs. Order dated 12-5-1990 for reinstating the petitioner was in accordance with law as factually the petitioner had withdrawn the resignation before acceptance of the same and that under the relevant rules the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated. His further submission is that the subsequent order dated 11-7-1990 was illegal. He had also urged that it was the duty of the Court to have interpreted the relevant rules as has been held by this Court in the case of Government of West Pakistan through the Secretary, P.W.D. (irrigation Branch), Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Hayat (PLD 1976 SC 202).
5. The above contentions are devoid of any force. The I.C.A. Arising out of the petitioner's above first Writ Petition No. 5154 of 1987, was disposed of by consent in terms of the above-quoted portion of the order of the Division - Bench namely that the Auqaf Department was to accept the petitioner as a fresh recruit without any financial liability or claim of seniority. The only reservation was that the petitioner could apply to the Auqaf Department for counting his past service for the purpose of pension. Respondent No. l was to issue the order of re-employment in terms of the above consent order dated 12-2-1990 but instead of stating the word re--employed the word reinstatement () was used. The above mistake was rectified by respondent No. 1 by the aforesaid order dated 11-7-1990.
The learned Judge in Chamber as well as the learned Judges of the Division Bench have effectively deal with the case of the petitioner. It will suffice to observe that the petitioner could not have claimed more then what was contained in the above consent order dated 12-2-1990 passed in I.C.A. No.32 of 1988. The question of interpreting the relevant rule wrongly is not involved in view of the above factual position. The judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers and the impugned order of the learned Judges of the Division Bench do not suffer from any infirmity. Leave is refused.