IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
 
 
 (Appellate Jurisdiction)  
 
 
Present:  
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.1562/2020, C.M.A.259-Q/2020 in C.A.1562/2020 
and 
C.A.1563/2020, 
C.M.A.260-Q/2020 
in 
C.A.1563/2020, 
C.A.1564/2020, C.M.A.262-Q/2020, C.A.1565/2020 and C.M.A.264-
Q/2020 in C.A.1565/2020 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16.9.2020 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in C.P.No.970/2015, CP.1011/2015,CP.1258/2015,1257/2018 
 
 
-------------------- 
 
 
Quetta Development Authority through Director General v. Abdul Basit 
and others 
…Civil Appeal No.1562/2020 
 
 
Quetta Development Authority through Director General v. Abdul Basit 
and others 
..C.M.A.259-Q/2020 
 
Quetta Development Authority thr: Director General v. Asif Ali and 
others 
 
..C.A.1563/2020 
 
Quetta Development Authority thr: Director General v. Asif Ali and 
others 
. 
.C.M.A.260-Q/2020 
 
 
Quetta Development Authority thr: Director General v. Aziz Ahmed 
..C.A.1564/2020 
 
Quetta Development Authority thr: Director General v. Aziz Ahmed 
 
..C.M.A.262-Q/2020 
 
Quetta Development Authority thr: Director General v. Abdul Jalil 
..C.A.1565/2020 
 
Quetta Development Authority thr: Director General v. Abdul Jalil 
..C.M.A.264-Q/2020 
 
…Appellant/Applicant/Respondents 
Civil Appeal No.1562/2020, etc 
2
  
For the appellants 
(In all cases):  
 
Syed Ayaz Zahoor, ASC (Via Video Link, Quetta) 
 
 
For the respondents 
In CAs.1562-1563/20: Mr. Gul Hassan Tareen, ASC (Via Video Link, Quetta) 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
Respondent  
(In CAs.1564-1565/20):  
Nemo 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
31.5.2021 
 
 
Judgment  
 
MAZHAR 
ALAM 
KHAN 
MIANKHEL, 
J-. 
The 
Quetta 
Development Authority (‘QDA’) duly advertised different posts in various 
pay scales. After completing all the codal formalities under ‘Quetta 
Development 
Authority 
Employees 
(Service) 
Regulations 
2010’, 
(‘Regulations’), Departmental Selection Committee recommended the 
names of successful Applicants/candidates for appointment to different 
posts. The Director General (‘DG’), QDA in exercise of powers conferred 
upon him under ‘Quetta Development Authority Ordinance, 1978’, (‘The 
Ordinance’), vide its order dated 8th January, 2013 issued their 
appointment orders and resultantly almost all such appointees 
submitted their joining reports for their respective posts. But just after 
few days of such exercise, their appointments were withdrawn/cancelled 
by the DG, QDA, (‘the appointing authority’), vide its two different orders 
dated 24th January, 2013 and 12th February, 2013. For ready reference 
both the orders are reproduced hereinbelow respectively:- 
 
 
“QUETTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
 
 
 
 
Dated Quetta the 24 January 2013 
 
 
 
ORDER  
No.1-16/78(135) Admn: 1860-66/. In view of weak financial 
position of QDA, decreasing of interest rates on Term 
Deposits of QDA by commercial banks and non-receipt of 
grant-in-aid, the recruitment orders of staff issued vide this 
Civil Appeal No.1562/2020, etc 
3
office order No.1-16/78(135) Admn1574 to 1732 dated 8th 
January 2013 and No.1-16/78(135) Admn: 1733 to 1855 
dated 9th January 2013 are hereby withdrawn/cancelled.  
 
 
Sd/- 
DIRECTOR GENERAL  
Quetta Development Authority” 
 
 
----------------------------------------- 
 
 
ORDER - dated-12.2.2013: 
 
“No.1-16/78(135) Admn:525-30). In view of weak financial 
position of QDA, decreasing interest rates on Term Deposits of 
QDA by commercial banks and non-receipt of grant-in-aid, the 
recruitment orders of staff issued vide this office order No.1-
16/78(135)Admn: 1553-60 dated 8th January 2013, office order 
No.1-16/78(135) Admn: 1561-67 dated 8th January 2013 and 
No.1-16/78(135) Admn: 1567-74 dated 8th January 2013 are 
hereby withdrawn/cancelled”. 
 
 
2. 
The said orders were questioned before The High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta (‘The High Court’). The High Court vide its detailed 
and elaborate consolidated judgment dated 12th January, 2015 rendered 
in different Writ Petitions, filed by some of the affectees, set aside the 
above noted withdrawal/cancellation orders by allowing their Writ 
Petitions, and declared the said orders to be null and void having no 
legal effect and their appointment orders were restored. This Court vide 
its judgment dated 18th September, 2015 passed in Civil Petition 
No.167/2015, etc dismissed the Civil Petitions and refused to grant the 
leave to appeal by upholding the judgment of The High Court dated 12th 
January, 2015. The said order was complied with and acted upon to the 
extent of the Petitioners of the Writ Petitions. 
 
 
 
The present Respondents, being the remaining affectees of 
the withdrawal/cancellation orders (noted above) regarding their 
appointments, submitted their applications for reinstatement in the light 
of judgments rendered by The High Court and The Supreme Court noted 
Civil Appeal No.1562/2020, etc 
4
above, but the present Appellant-DG, QDA, turned down their request. 
They being aggrieved and having no other remedy, approached The High 
Court with their respective Constitutional Petitions which were allowed 
vide the impugned judgment dated 16th September, 2020 and the 
Respondents, herein, were ordered to be reinstated to their respective 
posts in the light of recommendations of the Departmental Selection 
Committee and their respective appointment orders. The DG, QDA, 
feeling aggrieved, approached this Court with leave of this Court dated 
23rd December, 2020. 
 
3. 
Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case 
perused. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant 
was that the Constitution Petitions before The High Court filed by the 
Respondents were hit by the principle of laches as many of the same 
were filed by the Respondents after about two years and ten months. 
Besides the above, his next stance was that the Respondents were 
project employees and as per terms and conditions of their appointment 
orders, their services were liable to termination without assigning any 
reasons. Whereas the learned counsel for the Respondents, simply 
sought for the alike treatment to the Respondents as was meted out to 
the similarly placed employees of QDA who were appointed with the 
Respondents vide the same appointment orders dated 8th January, 2013 
on similar terms and conditions of service, as per mandate of Article 25 
of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (‘The 
Constitution’). He further argued that principle of laches in such 
circumstances, looses its force. He went on to maintain that orders of 
withdrawal/cancellation of appointment orders had earlier been struck 
down qua the litigating affectees in earlier round of litigation and the 
same has attained finality; validity of which now cannot be 
considered/challenged in the present set of Writ Petitions.  
 
Civil Appeal No.1562/2020, etc 
5
4. 
Perusal of the record would reveal that process and procedure of 
appointment of the present Respondents and the Petitioners of earlier 
Writ Petitions, as noted above, had never been a question under dispute. 
It was the subsequent two orders of withdrawal/cancellation of the 
appointments made by the DG, QDA, as reproduced above. The 
legality/validity of the said two orders was elaborately discussed and 
considered by The High Court in its earlier consolidated judgment dated 
12th January, 2015 and the same was upheld by this court vide its 
judgment dated  18th September, 2015. The present Appellant had 
contested the earlier round of litigation, and was fully aware of the entire 
episode in the Courts. The Appellant, (the same authority/person) in the 
present round of litigation, has once again raised the same points of 
facts and the law regarding nature of appointments and then dismissal 
from service of the Respondents and the learned counsel for the 
Appellant, even argued the same points today in the Court. The earlier 
part of the litigation has come to an end and has attained finality 
between the parties. That, questions once decided by the competent 
Court of law, cannot be re-agitated again by the Appellant. This 
aspect/issue will act as res judicata against him precluding him to 
question the order of appointments and then dismissals. The pros and 
cons of the appointments and the dismissal orders of the Petitioners in 
earlier round of litigation, were thoroughly considered by The High Court 
and then upheld by this Court. These have attained finality, not open to 
any further dilation and consideration.   
 
 
 
The present round of litigation has been narrowed down 
only to the question of entitlement of the Respondents as per the 
mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution. Whether they can be extended 
the same relief/benefit as was extended to their similarly placed 
colleagues through the intervention of the Court in an earlier round of 
litigation. We in the peculiar circumstances of the case, legally can only 
Civil Appeal No.1562/2020, etc 
6
look into this aspect of the case. It’s a matter of record that present 
Respondents were appointed on the same terms and conditions of 
service as that of the Petitioners of earlier Writ Petitions who have been 
given relief by the Court by restoring their orders of appointment and 
declaring the orders of withdrawal/cancellation as null and void, having 
no legal effect. The present Respondents were hired and fired together in 
the same manner as Petitioners of earlier Writ Petitions and are standing 
on the same pedestal as the earlier one. Both the sets of appointees 
cannot be separated from each other with regard to their appointments 
and dismissal. The only difference between the two sets is that the 
earlier group is the one who litigated for their rights and second group, 
the present Respondents, did not go to litigation earlier and through 
instant litigation has sought the relief already given to the first group 
who litigated. To claim such a relief is their fundamental right and the 
Constitution extends protection to their such right and as such they 
cannot be treated differently. The scale of justice has to be balanced on 
the same pattern. This is the mandate of Article of 25 of the 
Constitution. The law of the land in this regard has become well 
established. References in this regard can be made to the cases of 
Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secreatry, Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 
1185), Tara Chand v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (2005 SCMR 
499), Government of Punjab v. Sameena Parveen (2009 SCMR 1) and 
Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department and 269 others v. 
M. Ismail Tayer and 269 others (2014 SCMR 1336). When we hold that 
the Respondents being equally and similarly placed as the Petitioners of 
earlier Writ Petitions, then they become entitled to the same relief which 
was extended to them.  
 
5. 
In view of the law laid down by this Court (noted above), we cannot 
non-suit the Respondents and allow the laches to be a stumbling block 
in the way of dispensation of justice. This will amount to a refusal of a 
Civil Appeal No.1562/2020, etc 
7
fundamental right accrued in their favour after earlier decisions of The 
High Court and this Court. The rule of laches is applied in accordance 
with facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be made a rule of 
universal application. The question of laches, in the circumstances 
looses its force. The earlier judgment of The High Court was upheld by 
this Court and has attained finality. So, The High Court has very aptly 
dealt with the matter in favour of present Respondents in the present 
round of litigation.  
 
 
6. 
We in the circumstances find no merit; hence these appeals are 
dismissed with no order as to costs. All the CMAs are also disposed of 
accordingly.  
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge  
Islamabad,  
31st May, 2021 
Sarfraz /-  
‘’Not approved for reporting’’ 
