CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.~ The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order dated 26.7.2001 through this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not contain any reason. He further submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Mrs. M.N. Arshad, etc. v. Miss, kaeema Khan" (PLD 1990 S.C. 612), in which employees of respondent No. 4 are civil servants. He further submits that the impugned order is also hit by Article 25 of the Constitution, as the respondents granted same benefit to Ghulam Ghaus which is attached with writ petition at page 38. He further submits that action of the respondents is not. In accordance with dictum laid down by the Superior Courts and Superior Courts did not approve the action taken by the respondents in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, In support of the contention, he relied upon following judgments:- "Engineer Naraindas, etc. v. Federation of Pak. Etc." (2002 SCM R 82) + (2002 PLR (SC) 413).
"Government of Sindh v. Saleem Raza" (2001 SCM R 701).
He further submits that the impugned order was passed by the respondents without providing personal hearing to the petitioner or representative of the Lahore High Court, therefore, impugned order is not valid in the eyes of law, as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nafees Ahmad's case (2001 Pak. Supreme Court Cases 50). He summed-up his arguments that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution.
3. Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable in view of Bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act and /is for adjudication before this Court is for the period of service of petitioner under respondent No. 4.
4. The learned Addl. Advocate-General adopted the arguments of the learned D.A.G.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
6. The contention of the learned counsel of the respondents that the petition is not maintainable in view of Bar contained in Article 212 of Constitution read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, has no force. Keeping in view the' special circumstances and facts of this case, even otherwise this Court has ample powers to give direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with lav/ by virtue of Article 4 and Article 199 of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 S.C. 612). The impugned order itself reveals that the same was passed without providing proper hearing to the petitioner or representative of the Registrar of High Court, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zakir Ahmad' case (PLD 1965 SC 90). The impugned order also does not contain any reason. After addition of Section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievances of the citizens/subordinates with reasons as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Airport Support Service's case (1998 SCM R 2268). It is pertinent to mention h ere that letter of Government of the Punjab Finance Department dated 23.11.1999 is not in accordance with Notification dated 6.9.2000, Government of Pakistan Cabinet Secretariat (Establishment Division) which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-V at page 50 and Finance Department had given aforesaid defence without perusing the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. M.N. Arshad's case supra (PLD 1990 S.C. 612).
7, In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside meaning thereby the application find by the petitioner before respondents shall be deemed to be pending adjudication.
The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on 2.5.2002 in his office at 11-00 a.m.
Who is directed to pass fresh order after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner strictly in accordance with law preferably within three months till 2.8.2002. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period. Learned Addl. A.-G is directed to notify the order of this Court to respondent No. 2 for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.