' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Challenge in this petition under Article 185(3), of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been made to the judgment, dated 21-1-1998 passed by a learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby petitioner's Writ Petition No,786 of 1996 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner joined service in the Education Department (College Cadre) as Librarian in the year 1957. He was transferred from the post of Librarian, Government College Peshawar, to the Directorate of Education Extension Service Peshawar in the year 1971 and appointed as Assistant Director Libraries in his own pay and grade on 30-5-1974 and awarded the scale of Rs,450-50-1000 with effect from 6th March, 1974.
Representations for Promotion between 1980 and 1986 and proceedings up to 1993.
3. (a) In the years 1980 and 1986, the petitioner made representations for his promotion to B.P.S.17 with effect from 16-10-1971 instead of 6-3-1974, but to no avail.
(b) Later on the petitioner was sent on pre-mature retirement and on his successful challenge thereto before the Service Tribunal, he was reinstated with all back benefits. It may mentioned here that the respondent-authorities did not succeed in their efforts to have the order of petitioner's reinstatement in service with all back benefits being reversed by this Court.
(c) On being re-instated and posted as Librarian, the petitioner again challenged the said course before the Service Tribunal and the Service Tribunal held that he is entitled to B.P.S. 17 for the reason that at the time of his pre-mature retirement from service he was drawing his pay in BPS.17.
Representations between the years 1994 and 1995.
4. (a) In the year 1994 the petitioner moved yet another representation before the respondents seeking payment of emoluments of the post B.P.S.17 with effect from 16-10-1971.
(b) In the year 1995 the petitioner resorted to the Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a writ petition for the same purpose but it was got disposed of as withdrawn with the rider that the respondent-authorities were directed to finally dispose of his representation pending before them so that he can seek his remedy before the appropriate forum. The writ petition was dismissed accordingly.
Writ Petition No,786 of 1996
5. It was on 31-3-1996 that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,786 of 1996 with the following prayer:- - "In view of the aforesaid facts, it is humbly prayed that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 may kindly be directed, to award the petitioner the grade of Rs,450/1000 w.e.f, 1-2-1971- instead of 6-3-1974 and B.P.S.18 w.e.f, 1-7- 1991 when he had become due for promotion and inadvertently omitted from consideration with all back benefits."
' After notice to obtain comments from the respondent-authorities and appear in the case thereafter, the learned Additional Advocate-General did do so on 26-10-1996. The learned Members of the Division Bench of the High Court noticed the plea taken in the comments by the respondents that the petitioner was awarded B.P.S.17 with effect from 6-3-1974 for the reason that he obtained Master's Degree in Library Science and that basically the post of Librarian carries B.P.S.16 but in case of the incumbents who acquire Master's Degree in Library Science the scale of B.P.S.17 is granted without any up-gradation as also the allegation that Annexure A/2 appended to Writ Petition No,786 of 1996 was not issued by a competent authority and also bears the forged signatures of the Director Education (Colleges), to reach the following conclusion:-- "(5) It is also evident from the material placed on file that till the date, when the petitioner was awarded the pay scale 17, he was drawing less salary from 16-10-1971, but he never made any objection till the year 1980, when he made representation to the respondents, which was duly considered and rejected. Again, he never objected on this decision of the Provincial Government till the year 1986 when he made another representation and which representation was also considered and filed. For the third time, the petitioner allegedly made representation in the year 1994 and in the year 1995 he filed a Writ Petition before this Court, and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed that if a final order on the representation of the petitioner is passed, which is pending before the respondent, then he would withdraw this writ petition with permission to seek his redress from the proper forum. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Here too, an adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner that he was trying to bring a time barred claim within time. From the above facts, the petitioner was quite negligent in pursuing his cause at the appropriate stages."
6. Mr. Abdul Kadir Khattak, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of the petition, has reiterated the pleas raised by the petitioner in his earlier litigation and in answer to a query from the Bench submitted that the Constitutional petition was the only remedy available to the petitioner. According to him, the learned Division Bench of the High Court, was not right in observing that the petitioner was trying to bring a time-barred cause within time by seeking the disposal of his earlier writ petition was withdrawn with permission to seek his redress from the proper forum or that he was negligent in pursuing his cause at the appropriate stages.
7. Mr. Malik Manzoor Hussain, learned Additional Advocate-General, has controverted the very stand of the petitioner that he is entitled to ante-date promotion with effect from 1-12-1971 instead of 6-3-1974, including back benefits and to ante-date promotion on up-gradation of the post from B.P.S. 17 to B.P.S.18, with effect from 1-7-1991 with all benefits. He has also submitted that the Constitution Petition was not at all competent in that it related to, if at all, petitioner's terms and conditions of service.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties by their learned counsel and have also gone through the material, with their help. The pleas raised by the respondents in their parawise comments, copy available in 'Ind Paper Book: (i) at page 2 that he was awarded N.P.S.17 on 30-51974 after acquiring Master's Degree in Library Science; (ii) in the College Cadre no post B.P.S..18 is available for Librarian and (iii) the petitioner was awarded B.P.S.17 as a qualification scale which, by no stretch of imaginalion, can be equated with promotion. Penultimate paragraph of these parawise comments reads thus:-- "However, early on 17-11-1994 the petitioner's application for promotion was forward to the Secretary Education which was replied in details (Copy attached as Annedure-A/8) which is self-explanatory and would clarify the actual position of the alleged fake document, dated 16-10-1971, which was challenged by the department on 9-4-1996 in an earlier Writ Petition No,165 of 1995 (Copy attached as Annexure-A/9) and finding no other remedy. The petitioner made a request on 23-4-1996 for withdrawal of the Writ Petition No,165 of 1995 and to seek his redress from the proper forum."
9. What floats on the surface is that the petitioner is himself to blame for; (i) not pursuing his alleged remedies within time; (ii) his representation of the year 1994 was duly forwarded to Secretary Education and was replied to in detail bringing it the fore that document, dated 16-10- 1971 was a forgery; (iii) document, dated 16-10-1971 was challenged by the Department on 9-4-1996 in Writ Petition No,165 of 1995 and (iv) finding no other remedy by the petitioner made a request on 23-4-1996 for withdrawal of Writ Petition No,165 of 1995 and to seek his redress from the proper forum. The learned members of the Division Bench of the High Court were right in observing that according to the material placed on file" when the petitioner was awarded the pay scale.17 he wasdrawing less salary from 16-10-1971, but he never made any objection till the year 1980, when he made representation to the respondents, which was duly considered and rejected. Again he never objected on this decision of the Provincial Government till the year 1986 when he made another representation and which representation was also considered and filed. For the third time, the petitioner, allegedly made representation in the year 1994 and in the year 1995 he feild a writ petition before this court and the learned counsel appearing the petitioner prayed that if a final order on the representation of the petitioner is passed, which is pending before the respondent, then he would withdraw this writ petition, with permission to seek his redress from the proper forum.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn here to adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner that he was trying to bring time-barred claim within time. From the above facts, the petitioner wad _quite negligent in pursuing his cause at the appropriate stages. "
(Underlining is for emphasis).
10. The instant petition is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly. Leave is refused.