Brief facts out of which the present ICA arises, are that the respondent Muhammad Sajid Amin filed Writ Petition No. 17461 of 2002 with the following prayer: "That respondent No. 1 be directed to appoint the petitioner as a Lineman on the basis of son of the employee (who died during his employment) as per required by law and rules."
The aforesaid writ petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 16-12-2002. Hence the present ICA.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an agreement was executed between the appellant and the CBA Union of the respondent's father on 6-10-1996. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement, the appellants issued the policy dated 1-10-1997 under the heading "Employment of son/daughter of an employee who dies during his employment". The aforesaid policy letter was clarified by the appellants vide letter dated 19-3-1998 in which the cut-of date was mentioned by the competent authority that the cases of those employees who die after 6-10-1996 are covered in the said policy. The respondent's father died on 30-6-1996. The respondent filed initially an application under the said policy before the appellants on 29-11-1997 which was forwarded by the Divisional Engineer to the General Manager. The respondent was refused to appoint on account of ineligibility qua age and qualifications. The respondent submitted another application before the appellants in August, 2001 after completing the qualifications prescribed in the said policy. The appellants failed to pass any order on his application. The respondent being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.1187 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court and appellant No. 1 was directed to dispose of the application of the respondent within 20 days from the receipt of the order of this Court. The appellant decided the application of the respondent vide order dated 19-7-2002 on the ground that father of the respondent died on 30-6-1996, therefore, the case of the respondent does not fall under the policy of the appellants. The respondent being aggrieved filed the aforesaid Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law to accept the application of the respondent which admittedly submitted by him on 20-7-2001 after the clarification issued by the appellants in the year 1998 i.e. 19-3-1998. He further submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law to accept the Constitutional petition as the appellants did not violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The appellants appointed Arsalan Shaukat and 5 others and terminated the services of the aforesaid employees vide order dated 6-8-1998. The aforesaid persons being aggrieved availed the proper remedies before the competent Court/competent forum.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record ourselves.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce para.3 of the writ petition and reply of the appellants: Para. 3 of the writ petition "That as per rules, the petitioner moved an application in 1997 for appointment as a Lineman on the basis of employee's son after the death of his father. The said application was forwarded by the respondent No.2 to respondent No. 1 but unfortunately, the petitioner's age and his qualification was less than required age and qualification. The respondents verbally convinced to the petitioner while asking him that he will be appointed as Lineman if he will pass his matriculation examination and to be a major i.e. Above than 18 years."
Reply to para. 3 of the writ petition submitted by the appellants "The averments made in the para. Are misconceived, hence denied. Since the petitioner was under age and did not qualify for appointment being non--matriculate, his application was not entertained. "
PLD 1971 SC 376). It is also admitted fact on the basis of the aforesaid paragraph of the writ petition and reply of the appellants that the respondent had accrued vested right qua legitimacy on the promise made by the appellants to the respondent, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is valid on the well---known principle of promissory estoppel as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and 2 others v. Salahuddin and 3 others (PLD 1991 SC 546). As substantial justice has been done, therefore, this ICA is not maintainable.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this Intra-Court Appeal is dismissed.