' I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar fact and law:--
(i) W.P. No,13481 of 2002.
(ii) W.P. No,15258 of 2002.
2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions with prayer that the respondents had withheld the salaries of the petitioners without any justification, therefore, the respondents be directed to release the arrears of salaries of the petitioners from their duty period to forthwith.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the respondents have no lawful authority to withhold the salaries of the petitioners for the period for which they had performed their duties under the valid order of the respondents. He further submits in Writ Petition No,13481 of 2002 that the respondents appointed another person in place of the petitioner inspite of restraining order passed by this Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon following judgments:-- "Mst. Shamim Bano v. Province of Punjab" (1998 PLC (C.S.) 337).
"Qazi Akhtar Ali v. Director Agriculture" (2000 PLC (C.S.) 784).
' Administrator District Council Larkana v. Ghulab Khan" (2001 PLC (C.S.) 991).
"Barkat All v. Muhammad Ihsan" (2000 SCMR 556).
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits under instructions that the respondents did not violate the direction of this Court as the respondents did not appoint any person in place of the petitioner. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction in view of the Bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. He further submits that the petitioners were removed from service by the respondents on 28-5-2002 and they filed this Writ Petition No,15258 of 2002 on 22-8-2002. He further submits that the petitioners were not appointed by the respondents, therefore, the claim of the petitioners qua their salaries is not sustainable. He further submits that the petitioners did rot implead the Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore as respondent, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. He further submit that the petitioners did not perform their duties during the period in question. He further summed up his arguments that the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that the petitioners have not challenged the vires of removal orders of the petitioners before this Court. The petitioners only filed these writ petitions for the salaries of the period during which they allegedly performed the duties of the respondents.
6. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel of the respondents that this Court has no jurisdiction. This Court has ample power to give direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law inspite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. The matter qua the release of salaries, has 'been finally decided by this Court in the following judgment:-- "Hafiz Mazhar Hussain v, DEO Ithanewal" (PL1 1998 Lahore 985)
' Writ Petition No,9007 of 1998-- ' The matter was agitated in Writ Petition No,9007 of 1998 which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on the statement of learned Additional Advocate-General in the following terms: "Till such time the employees continue in the service of Education Department and action against them is not finalized, the salary due to them shall not be stopped. The communication dated 3-10- 1998 from the Government of Punjab in the Education Department has also been placed on the record of this case. This satisfies the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners. The petition is accordingly, disposed of as not pressed in view of undertaking given by the learned Additional Advocate-General."
8. In view of the judgment of this Court which, is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution, the respondents have no authority whatsoever to usurp the stand taken by the highest authority of the Education Department i,e, Secretary Education, who has given categorical instructions to all the concerned vide letter dated 3-10-1998 but the action of the respondents is not in accordance with the redirection of the authorities. It is admitted fact that action of the respondents is based on malice as they did not act in accordance with direction of the Secretary Government of the Punjab.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, these writ petitions are accepted to the extent of non-releasing the salaries of the petitioners in respect of the actual work done and duties performed by them. The respondents are duty bound to release the salaries of the petitioners. The respondents are directed to verify the record and release the salaries qua the actual work done and duties performed by the petitioners within one month after receiving the order of this Court.
10. Let a copy of these writ petitions be sent to the Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab, who shall look into the matter personally and direct all his subordinates to act in accordance with law and according to his direction.
' With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.