| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5263 2024 SLD 5263 2024 PLC 657 |
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1974-L of 2020, decided on 1st February, 2024. (Against the order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in I.C.A. No.128925 of 2018). Date of hearing: 1st February 2024.
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, CJ, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
Barrister M. Mumtaz Ali, Addl. AG Punjab for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 21. Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos.22 to 29 and 31 to 35. Junaid Jabbar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.30.
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Population Welfare Department, Lahore and others
VERSUS
SHEHZAD ANJUM and others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 2, O.II, R. 2
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O.II, R. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Civil service---Regularization in service---Second constitutional petition filed on the basis of the same cause of action which was decided in the first constitutional petition---Maintainability---Respondents (employees) had sought their regularization from the date of their appointment in the first constitutional petition ('the first petition') filed before the High Court, which was disposed of by the High Court directing that the respondents be regularized in terms of the said judgment---If the respondents were not satisfied with the said judgment they should have appealed the same or if the same was not implemented they should have sought its implementation, which could have been by invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court---In any event on the same cause of action, and one which had been decided pursuant to the judgment in the first petition, another constitutional petition ('the second petition') was not maintainable, and as no fresh cause of action had accrued to the respondents---This critical aspect of the case was overlooked by the Single Judge of the High Court who passed the order in the second petition---Though this is not the respondents' case, if for the sake of argument it is assumed that in the first petition the respondents had only sought their regularization, and after they were regularized they wanted the regularization to take effect from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis, they could not seek this relief subsequently in the second petition because of the restriction in Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and the second petition filed by the respondents was dismissed.
ORDER
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492