' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Petitioner, in the above petitions under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has sought the indulgence of this Court to proceed against the respondents, hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Railways, for "...Not showing due regard to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed in the above Petition for Leave to Appeal dated 22-4- 1999" (excerpt from the title of Criminal Original No,8-L of 1999) and "...Having disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'bie Court on 22-4-1999 in Civil Petition No,1785-L of 1998" (excerpt from the title- of Criminal Original No,31-L. Of 1999). Criminal Original No,8-L of 1999 has been prefaced by an 'introductory note' to the effect that, originally, the civil petition for leave to appeal filed by the respondent-Railways there were several respondents. "...For the present proceedings, it is not necessary to implead all of them because the grievance which is being sounded is only against the Railway functionaries and not against the rest of the respondents." (Underlining is for emphasis).
2. According to the petitioner, he was one of the several Booking Clerks (BCs) who had a very little chance of promotion as Senior Commercial Supervisor (SCS), therefore, with a view to giving some outlet for promotion, they were given the chance in terms of notification dated 15-9-1962 that 10% of the strength of Special Ticket Examiners (STEs)-posts will be reserved for them for future promotion. Further, vide Notification dated 4-8-1965, it was notified that Goods Clerks (GCs) and Parcel Clerks (PCs) will also have a share of promotion to the posts of STEs with 5% each quota i.e, 10% quota for GCs and PCs put together. He filed Writ Petition No,11657 of 1994 before the High Court on 5-3-1997 which was dismissed. He succeeded in his Intra-Court Appeal No,1039 of 1997 which was allowed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgment dated 14-9-1998 holding that they had a right under the Notification of 1962 to get promotion to their respective quota to the STEs. Against the judgment dated 14-9-1998, the respondent-Railways filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,1914-L of 1998. This Court was seized of three other petitions of similar nature i.e, C.Ps. 1784-L, 1785-L and 1913-L of 1998. The abovementioned C.Ps. Were disposed of, with the consent of the parties, on 22-4-1999, as below: ' "By consent the above petitions are converted into appeals and disposed of as follows:--
(i) that 10% seat for the Booking Clerks under Notification dated 15-9-1962 will be allocated from the vacancies available on 15-9-1962 or when become available.
(ii) 10% quota for the Goods and Parcel Clerks would be allocated against the vacancies on the day of issuance of Notification i.e, 4-8-1965, or when become available."
3. According to the petitioner, he had served the department as BC since 1960 and "...Is due to retire within couple of months ahead." (Criminal Original No,8-L of 1995 is dated 3-7-1999). In spite of his several visits to the office of the respondent-functionaries, the implementation of the judgment " is being avoided the petitioner alongwith several others put in written representation bringing to the notice of the Railway Authorities that they are bound to implement the judgment which was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with their consent and, therefore, they are bound to show due regard to implement the judgment without any delay. The reasons advanced were (i) that many, persons were nearing their retiring age and they were senior in several steps and were deserving promotion legally in terms of the notification and in terms of the judgment; (ii) After the judgment many persons in the hope that the notification and the judgment will be implemented, have not been able to see the implementation in their service career and have retired after the passing of the judgment and they are (1) Muhammad Yousaf, Booking Clerk; (2) M.Anwar Siddiqui, Booking Clerk; (3) Anwar Butt, Booking Clerk and (4) Muhammad Safdar, Booking Clerk.
"(iii) It was also said in the representation and verbally also that the time when practically the implementation will be carried out, several others will be retired and they will not be able to see benefit which has flown from the judgment of the Supreme Court with the consent of the parties.
"(iv) It is very important to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that according to the calculations of the present petitioner, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and date of Notification of 1962 and 1965, there are 222 vacancies of Special Ticket Examiners and out of this, at least 22 must fall to the lot of Reserved Quota of the present petitioner and others, but unfortunately up to the filing of this petition, not a single Booking Clerk from the serving personnel has been promoted to any of such vacancy which itself demonstrates the arbitrariness and high handedness of the Railway authorities.
' That all these reasons carried no weight with the Railway functionaries sitting in their comfortable offices without having any regard to their subordinate serving personnel offices, without having any regard to their subordinate serving personnel clamouring for their due legal right. On one pretext or the other, the implementation of the judgment is being avoided, therefore, for the sake of securing confidence in Railway service for the subordinate staff not only for the present but also for the future generation, the petitioner finding no other alternate has approached this Hon'ble Court with the grievance that judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court is not being paid due regard, but in a further sense it has not been obeyed positively and still further the avoidance of the implementation of the judgment do demonstrate that the Railway Authorities are cultivating an idea to defeat the spirit of the judgment which judgment enshrines benefits to suppressed class of Railway subordinate officials.
' "In view of the foregoing submissions it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased after assessing the situation to proceed against respondents 1, 2 and 3 for not showing due regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Court dated 22-4-1999 in the above cited Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal and may further be pleased to punish the respondents in accordance with law for not obeying the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in letter and spirit."
4. It was on 21-12-1999 that this Court passed the following order in both the petitions:-- ' "Reply to this petition alongwith concise statement has been filed in which it has been stated that in implementation of the judgment of this Court, 10% vacancies of the post of STE were allocated and filled from Booking Clerks and other 10% from the Goods and Parcels Clerks on their becoming available since 1962.
' "The case of the petitioners, according to their learned counsel, was that it was not the vacancies becoming available of the post of STE which were to be filled 10% from Booking Clerks and 10% from the Goods and Parcels Clerks, but 10% even of the total posts available according to the prescribed strength of STEs were to be filled through promotion from Booking Clerks and Goods and Parcels Clerks, respectively.
' "Be that as it may, this question shall be decided separately. The respondent-Railway is hereby directed to submit written statement as to what was the total strength of STE Division-wise in the Railways and how many vacancies are available at present. Those posts which have already been filled, how many are being occupied by the Booking Clerks and the Goods and Parcels.
' "May be fixed in the next session of this Court at Lahore."
5. On 27-4-2000 the following order was passed:- ' "After hearing the learned counsel for parties we are prima facie convinced that General Manager (Personnel) i.e, respondent No,1 is intentionally avoiding to implement the consent order dated 22- 4-1999 passed by this Court in Civil Petitions No,1784-L, 1785-L, 1913-L and 1914-L of 1998 and correct facts are being concealed from the Court with the object to violate the Court order. Therefore, the General Manager (Personnel) respondent No,1 has made himself liable for action for contempt of Court in view of provisions of Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore, we order that a show-cause notice be issued to respondent No,1 to appear and explain as to why proceedings for contempt of Court may not be initiated against him.
' "It is clarified that if Muhammad Aslam, General Manager (Personnel) respondent No,1 is not holding the charge of post of General Manager (Personnel) then notice be served upon present incumbent General Manager (Personnel) because now it is his duty to implement in letter and spirit order of this Court. The reply of this notice shall be submitted within a period of one week after receipt of show-cause notice.
' "Adjourned to a date during next session at Lahore."
' It may be mentioned that on 6-7-2000 these matters were listed for 24-7-2000 as below:-- ' "In pursuance of the order dated 27-4-2000 the respondents have filed their written reply. Learned counsel for the applicants are directed to submit rejoinder within a week and then the case is to be put up for hearing on 24-7-2000. The present incumbent of the post is not present in spite of the fact that he was directed to appear in person on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that due to some misconception the said officer could not be informed and undertook that he shall appear on the next date of hearing.
' "Adjourned to 24-7-2000."
' On 24-7-2000 the cases were postponed for today.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the material brought on the record by them. When the attention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was drawn to the comments/written statements submitted by the respondent-authorities to the effect that the order dated 22-4-1999 has in fact been complied with and that as the petitioner had failed to obtain relief from the High Court in his Writ Petition No,16699 of 1999 on 19-10-1999 and as he had admittedly been promoted and has retired from service with the result that no further cause is left with him to prosecute these petitions any further, Mr. Hamid Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court submitted that as 156 vacancies had to be filled in by the respondent-authorities and as an insignificant number of persons falling in the above 'approved-category' had been promoted, the cause is still current and the petitioner, in spite of his retirement, can pursue these petitions with a view to advancing the cause of justice for all concerned. Mr. Shahid Saeed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the respondent-Railways, has made a reference to the relevant documents to contend that petitioner Abdul Haq Bhatti (alongwith others) was promoted in strict compliance with the judgment dated 22-4-1999 and, therefore, he was left with no locus to proceed with these petitions any farther. Mr. Shahid Saeed was also critical of the stance taken by the petitioner to the effect that he can pursue the cause on behalf of those unnumbered employees of the Pakistan Railways who were entitled to be treated by the latter in accordance with the consent-order dated 22-4-1999. His precise plea was that none of those who are alleged by the petitioner to have a right to seek their promotion by respondent-Railways between the years 1962/1965 to-date, has raised any objection whatsoever in that behalf and that the petitioner himself cannot be heard 'complaining' on their behalf and that too without any authority from them.
7. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and also carefully perused the material available on the record generally and the stance taken by the respondent-authorities that they have meticulously implemented the consent order dated 22-4-1999 with the result that allegation to the contrary and that too by petitioner-Abdul Haq Bhatti who has since retired from service and is sans any authorization from them, in particular. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities that petitioner-Abdul Haq Bhatti has no locus standi to pursue the cause of those unspecified persons/employees of the respondent-Railways who have themselves not even so much as raised their little finger for either the alleged failure of the respondent-authorities to implement the judgment dated 22-4-1999 or even for denying them any right of promotion in terms of the said judgment. The concern expressed on their behalf by the petitioner regarding implementation of this Court's judgment dated 22-4-1999 by the respondent-Railways may be very laudable indeed but we hasten to add that such understanding of the petitioner cannot clothe him with any locus whatsoever either to commence or continue the above Criminal Originals No,8-L of 1999 and 31-L of 1999. Viewed in this perspective, the petitioner can be equated with a person pro bono public for the purposes of these proceedings. Moreso, when his promotion has come about and he has also retired from service with the result that nothing is left with him to be urged in support of his own personal grievance, if any.
8. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that any one of the employees similar placed as him has constituted him as his attorney for taking out any proceedings whatsoever against the respondent-authorities in the matter of the latter's alleged failure to implement the above- judgment of this Court dated 22-4-1999.
9. Looked at from whatever angle, the instant petitions cannot proceed any further at the instance of the petitioner who has neither any genuine complaint to make to his own extent in relation to the implementation of this Court's order dated 22-4-1999 nor is even in a position to show that he has been constituted as an Attorney of sorts by one person or any number of such persons who have allegedly not received a lawful treatment to their case/s for promotion in terms of this Court order dated 22-4-1999.
10. The above are the reasons for our short order dated 25-7-2000 which reads thus: ' "For reasons to be recorded later, the above Criminal Originals are dismissed as:--
(i) the petitioner-Abdul Haq Bhatti already stood promoted in terms of this Court's order dated 22- 4-1999 in Civil Petitions Nos.1784-L, 1785-L, 1913-L and 1914-L of 1998 and not left with any locus to make the present Criminal Originals seeking contempt-proceedings against the respondents- General Manager, Divisional Superintendent and Divisional Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways as also General Manager (Personnel), Regional Manager 'PBU' and Regional Operating Manager 'PBU', Lahore for their alleged failure to implement the order dated 22-4-1999 and
(ii) any other employee similarly placed as the petitioner, who considers himself entitled to any indulgence from the respondent-Railways in terms of order dated 22-4-1999, may take up the matter with the respondent-Railways in that behalf by making a demand for justice on available grounds and, only on their refusal, resort to other available remedies against them."