FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This is petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15-12-1994 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No. 1100 of 1990.
2. The petitioner who was in service of Industrial Department of the Government of Punjab in B-11 posted in the office of Deputy Director of Industries, Rawalpindi. His services, were placed at the disposal of Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, as industrial Development Officer (B-16) for period of 3 years. On 5-8-1984 the petitioner was qualified as B.Sc. With Physics and Math. On the terms and conditions given in the-letter dated 6-8-1984, with the modification that usual terms and conditions applicable to the other officers and employees were made applicable to him.
3. In anticipation of the expiry of the period of 3 years the petitioner's parent department vide letter dated 5-10-1987 requested the Administrator, ICT, to repatriate the petitioner if his services were no more required or he was to be absorbed against a regular post on permanent basis per rules. The parent department was informed that though his services were still needed but there being no permanent post in the department, therefore, he could not be absorbed but a request was made that his period of deputation be extended. It was further stated that in case permanent post of the nature is made available in the department he would be considered for the same. Subsequently, before the creation of permanent post, the period of deputation was extended for a further period of 2 years i.e. From 10-10-1987 to 9-10-1989.
4. The post of Industrial Development Officer was made permanent on 15-6-1988 and when the, matter was taken up again then the petitioner's absorption on the post was not approved yet the petitioner was not repatriated in spite of the expiry of his period of deputation. During this period there was lengthy correspondence regarding the 20 per cent deputation allowance instead of 10 per cent: as the petitioner was working on a higher post. The parent department without extending the period of deputation asked the Administrator to permanently absorb the petitioner and to issue notification in this regard and to convey the present department of such permanent absorption at the earliest.
5. Finding no favourable response from the respondent the parent department asked the petitioner on 14-2-1990 to report back for duty failing which departmental action was to be taken against him.
6. It is worth consideration that through Gazette Notification dated 15-9-1988 in pursuance to sub- rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotions and Transfer) Rules, 1973, the method, qualifications and other conditions were laid down for appointment of various posts including the post of Industrial Development Officer B-16 in the Industries Department of Islamabad Capita' Territory under the Ministry of Interior. Petitioner on issuance of such notification filed Writ Petition No.1100 of 1990 in the High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in which it was prayed that direction be given to the respondent to issue notification regarding the petitioner's permanent absorption as Industrial Development Officer in B-16 in the ICT with effect from 10-10-1989. It was also prayed that till then the post shall not be filled. At the the of the hearing of the petition it transpired that the petitioner had already been repatriated to his parent Department. The learned High Court, therefore, holding that after such repatriation the petitioner has been left with no cause of action, dismissed the same as withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the learned High Court in Civil Petition No.275 of 1995 which was withdrawn on 7-1'171,993 as petitioner wanted to file a review petition in the honourable High Court. The application of the petitioner for review of the judgment in Writ Petition was heard on 15-12-1994 and dismissed on the ground that there was no reason for recalling the earlier order dated 21-4-1993 dismissing the Writ Petition. Accordingly, leave to appeal is prayed for against the said order.
7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, basing reliance on the judgment in Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad v. Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others (C.A-193-R of 1995), decided on 25- 7-1995, that on the creation of the permanent post on which the petitioner was working on deputation shall not have been denied to be considered for induction/absorption on such post. It is contended that he shall be treated accordingly as had been in the precedent case.
8. On perusal of the judgment relied upon we find it quite distinguishable on facts of the present case. The learned High Court rejected the review application on the ground that no sufficient ground was shown for recalling the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 1100 of 1990. Moreso the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service therefore instead of approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction the petitioner shall have approached the competent forum in proper the for the redress of his grievance, if any. We find no infirmity in the observation of the learned High Court that after repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department he had been left with no grievance to be redressed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. This is, therefore, not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of the- learned High Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1872 of 1993. The petitioner if feels aggrieved and if so advised can approach the competent forum for his redress. Leave to appeal is refused and petition dismissed.