IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED. 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN. 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.606 AND 607 OF 2018  
(Against the Judgment dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Intra Court Appeals No.181 and 196 of 
2012).  
 
Qazi Munir Ahmed. 
 
 
 
 
  …Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      (in both cases) 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Rawalpindi Medical College and  
Allied Hospital through its Principal,  
Rawalpindi and others.  
 
 
 
Respondents (in CP#606/18) 
 
Province of Punjab through Secretary  
Health Department, Lahore and others.  
Respondents (in CP#607/18) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the petitioner:  
Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
 
 
 
(in both cases) 
 
For the respondents: Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
06.03.2019. 
 
O R D E R   
 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.- Through this order, we 
propose to decide CPLA Nos.606 and 607 of 2018 as common 
questions of law are involved and both petitions arise out of 
the same impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.  
 
2. 
 
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a 
judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, 
Rawalpindi, dated 07.12.2017, through which Intra Court 
Appeals (ICA Nos.196 & 181 of 2012) filed by the Respondents 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.606 AND 607 OF 2018  
 
 
2
were accepted, the judgment dated 30.08.2012 passed by the 
learned Single Judge in Chambers was set aside and the 
constitutional petition (W.P.No.2059 of 2011) filed by the 
petitioner was dismissed.  
 
3. 
 
The brief facts necessary for disposal of this lis are 
that the petitioner was appointed as an ECG Technician in 
District Headquarters Hospital, Rawalpindi in 2005 on 
contract basis. In 2009, his services were terminated. He 
challenged his termination through a representation which 
was not decided. He therefore approached the High Court in its 
constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court ultimately directed 
the Respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation. This 
was dismissed by the departmental authority on 06.08.2011. 
The petitioner challenged the said order through Writ Petition 
No.2059 of 2011, which was allowed, vide order dated 
30.08.2012. The Respondents feeling aggrieved challenged the 
said judgment through two separate Intra Court Appeals. 
These 
were 
allowed, 
vide 
impugned 
judgment 
dated 
07.12.2017. Hence, these petitions. 
 
4. 
 
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 
the Division Bench of the High Court fell in error in reversing 
the findings of the learned Single Judge in a mechanical 
manner. He further maintains that the ICA filed by the 
Rawalpindi Medical College (“RMC”), which was neither a party 
to the proceedings in the writ petition nor was directly 
aggrieved of the order dated 30.08.2012, was not competent. 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.606 AND 607 OF 2018  
 
 
3
He further maintains that the ICA filed by the Government of 
Punjab was barred by time and the learned Division Bench 
erred in law in entertaining the appeals and ultimately 
accepting the same.  
 
5. 
 
The learned counsel for the Respondents on the 
other hand has defended the impugned judgment. He has 
pointed out that even if the appeal filed by the Government of 
Punjab was barred by time, another appeal filed by RMC was 
admittedly within time. It is settled law that if two appeals 
against the same impugned judgment are filed, one of which is 
within time, the other appeal should also be entertained and 
decided on merit rather than being dismissed on technical 
grounds thereby creating legal complications and anomalies.  
 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 
and carefully examined the record. There is no denial of the 
fact that the appeal filed by the RMC was within time. As such, 
even if the appeal filed by the Government of Punjab was 
barred by time, the learned Division Bench had legal basis and 
lawful justification to entertain and decide both appeals on 
merits. Even otherwise, the order of petitioner’s appointment 
was found to be void. Further, in terms of the law laid down by 
this Court in the judgment reported as Yousaf Ali v. 
Muhammad Aslam Zia (PLD 1958 SC 104), no period of 
limitation runs against a void order. 
 
7. 
 
As far as the argument of the learned counsel for 
the petitioner that RMC could not have filed an appeal, suffice 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.606 AND 607 OF 2018  
 
 
4
it to say that any aggrieved person whether or not he was a 
party in a lis has the right to approach an appellate forum. 
Reference in this regard may usefully be made to H. M. Saya & 
Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 65). 
The learned ASC for the petitioner has not been able to 
convince us either that the appeal filed by the RMC was not 
competent or that the same was wrongly entertained and 
decided by the Division Bench. 
 
8. 
 
Adverting to the merits of the case, we find that 
vide letter dated 22.06.2004, the Principal Secretary to the 
Chief Minister, Punjab had desired that the case of the 
petitioner 
for 
reemployment 
be 
placed 
before 
the 
Reemployment Board for consideration on merit. However, it 
appears that the Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital, 
Rawalpindi without referring the matter to the Reemployment 
Board, and on his own accord directly appointed the petitioner 
on contract basis. Such order was clearly in violation of the 
aforenoted letter as well as beyond the powers of the said 
office.  
 
9. 
 
We have specifically asked the learned counsel for 
the petitioner that under what authority of the law the Chief 
Minister 
had 
the 
power 
to 
issue 
directives 
regarding 
reemployment of government servants. He has not been able to 
provide any legally sustainable response to the same.  
 
10. 
 
It also appears that the case of one Rizwana Bibi 
involving identical questions had been dismissed by a Division 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.606 AND 607 OF 2018  
 
 
5
Bench of the High Court. The said matter came up for hearing 
before this Court in CPLA No.155 of 2010 which was dismissed 
vide judgment dated 15.02.2010. The points of law involved in 
the petitioner’s case are the same regarding which findings 
have already been relieved and law laid down in Rizwana Bibi’s 
case. As such, the learned High Court was justified in relying 
on the same and refusing to grant relief to the petitioner.   
 
11. 
 
It is also noticed that the petitioner did not implead 
the Province of Punjab as a party in the constitutional petition. 
This was despite the fact that the said Government was a 
necessary and proper party in the case. In the circumstances, 
even otherwise, the constitutional petition was not competent 
and was rightly dismissed by the Division Bench. Reference in 
this regard may usefully be made to Government of 
Balochistan v. Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi (2010 SCMR 
115). 
 
12. 
 
We have also noticed that the dispute between the 
parties related to contract employment. This Court has in 
various pronouncements settled the law that a contract 
employee is debarred from approaching the High Court in its 
constitutional jurisdiction. The only remedy available to a 
contract employee is to file a suit for damages alleging breach 
of contract or failure to extend the contract. Reference in this 
behalf may be made to Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad 
Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120), where it has been held that 
it is a cardinal principle of law that a contract employee cannot 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.606 AND 607 OF 2018  
 
 
6
press for reinstatement to serve for the left over period and can 
at the best claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of 
his service. Therefore, it was correctly held that the petitioner 
approached the wrong forum in the first place and the learned 
Single Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by interfering in a 
purely contractual matter.  
 
13. 
 
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been 
able to show us any legal, procedural or jurisdictional error, 
defect or flaw in the impugned judgment that may require 
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under 
Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench 
is well reasoned, based on settled principles of law on the 
subject and the conclusions drawn are duly supported by the 
record. We are therefore not inclined to grant leave to appeal in 
this matter.  
 
14. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, these petitions being 
devoid of merits stand dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
ISLAMABAD. 
06.03.2019. 
ZR/* 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’ 
