ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P.No.3873 of 2012

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Order with signature of Judge

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For orders on CMA No.7503/2017 (XLVII R 1)

----------------------------------------------------------

17.04.2017.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris Lari, Advocate along with the petitioner.

Ms. Naheed Perveen, DAG.

>><<

The instant petition was disposed of on 28.02.2013 with directions to the petitioner, who appeared in person, to make representation to the concerned department, which will consider the decisions of Federal Service Tribunal and Supreme Court given in the matter and thereafter decide the issue. Previously according to the petitioner since the said representation was not decided therefore contempt application bearing CMA No.4553/2017 was moved, which was dismissed after finding the same misconceived and not maintainable, as this court, while hearing the contempt application, did not find any non-compliance of its order and now the present review application has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner on the previous date was categorically asked a question with regard to the maintainability of this application.

Today, Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris Lari, advocate along with the petitioner is present and filed a statement mentioning therein that under Article 203E(9) of the Constitution, this Court has the power to review any decision or order made by it. He further stated that under Article 162 of the Limitation Act review application against Judgment /Decree has to be filed within 20 days and the present review application has since been filed within the limitation period, therefore this Court by exercising its powers under above referred Article may review its order dated 16.02.2017 by directing the respondents to promote the petitioner.

Perusal of record clearly reveals that on 28.02.2013 while disposing of the petition this court clearly directed the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned department and in case the said representation is not decided in accordance with law, he has the right to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. It has also been observed by the Court, while dismissing the contempt application filed by the petitioner on 16.02.2017, that since an order on the representation made by the petitioner has purportedly been passed hence the petitioner, if aggrieved with the said order, may seek remedy in accordance with law and it is only in this backdrop that the contempt application was dismissed after finding the same misconceived. It was categorically observed vide order dated 16.02.2017 that when representation made by the petitioner has been decided, the remedy of the petitioner lies to challenge the same in accordance with law, if aggrieved. However nothing has been brought on record as to whether the petitioner has challenged the order passed on the said representation or not. It was further observed that since purported compliance of the order of this Court has been made hence contempt application filed by the petitioner was found to be misconceived and not maintainable and was dismissed accordingly. We have categorically asked a question from the counsel representing the petitioner that contempt proceedings are the matters between which parties? In reply thereto, he candidly stated that contempt matters are always between the court and the alleged contemnor. The contempt application filed by the petitioner was dismissed after finding the same to be misconceived and not maintainable on the ground that no violation of the order passed by this Court was found to have been committed by the alleged contemnor. This review application filed by the petitioner taking refuge of the Article 203E(9) of the Constitution, which has no bearing what so ever on the matter in hand, appears to be wholly misplaced and unwarranted. Learned counsel has not pointed out any material to review the order dated 16.02.2017, wherein it has been observed that no contempt of Court’s order has been made by the alleged contemnor, when it is an admitted position that the contempt proceedings are always a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor and this Court has not found any violation of its order and thereafter had dismissed the contempt application as misconceived and not maintainable. Though we could have dismissed the present application by imposing cost however by taking a lenient view in the light of the findings recorded above dismiss the same as misconceived and not maintainable.

JUDGE

Gulzar/PA