ISLA MABAD - Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry once again gave Federation another chance to comply with the Supreme Court verdict in removing Director General FIA and stated do not test the patience of court in this case. The Federation counsel, during the Haj corruption case sought more time, saying that the court was hearing the case since January. CJ in response said: 'Tell the government do not test our patience any more. We are looking the things from positive angle. He remarked that for the respect and honour of the court no compromise would be made. He said do not think that the order for removal of DG FIA was from the CJP, but by a seven-member bench. 'We have already given opportunity to the government to look into this matter but it seems the govt was not interested, he added. The Chief Justice said the Federation was forcing court to give judgment and if that happens then the DG FIA may lose perks and privileges. He asked the govt to dissociate DG Waseem Ahmed and let the committee, scrutinising the cases of contract employees continue its job. A four-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and comprised Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Raja Fayyaz and Justice Ghulam Rabbani was hearing Haj scandal case. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Federation counsel, contented that the post of DG FIA is not a cadre, but a special post. He prayed that the proceedings related to re-employment on contract basis of officers who have superannuated may graciously be terminated and the committee constituted by the PM may be permitted to determine the case of all such officers, fairly, justly and with procedural propriety. He raised objection that the instant proceedings do not pertain to the enforcement of any fundamental rights in general, Article 9 of the Constitution in particular, and ,therefore, are beyond the scope of the Article 184(3) of the Constitution. 'The rights of the serving government servants are available to them in individual capacity and under the provisions of the Civil Servants Laws and Rules, which give them remedies against injustice in each individual case, he said. He said there is no such right, much less a fundamental right, available to any government servant to demand or ask for 'Promotion. The only entitlement available to such individual is to be 'considered for promotion, he added. The learned Counsel submitted that no person has come forward claiming to be aggrieved by the decision of the Federal govt/Prime Minister to re-employ officers on contract basis after their superannuation. He stated that the subject matter falls within the executive authority of the Prime Minister/Federal govt as per mandate of the Constitution and does not come within the ambit of judicial power or jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and or 199 of the Constitution. 'The only question that may possibly arise is whether a particular contract is in violation of Section 14 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 for which the remedy may or may not be available (depending on each case) to an individual aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution or under service law through special tribunals, he added. 'The said re-employments were made after evaluating the material and credentials pertaining to the relevant officers. The Federal government/Prime Minister also had an opportunity of monitoring the progress and performance of those officers who were re-employed on contract basis after their superannuation. Therefore, the proceedings in this case will be tantamount to sitting in appeal against the exercise of executive authority by the Federal government, he said. He said that in any case, and in deference to the observation of this Court, the Prime Minister has constituted a committee to review all contractual appointments and it is respectfully submitted that the said committee be given a reasonable time to proceed with and conclude its task with procedural propriety. Earlier, Rauf Chaudhry Establishment Division presented the list of cadre officers re-employed in Federal Ministries and the attached departments on contract basis. The Chief Justice directed him to given undertaking that this was the only list of the contract employees. The case was adjourned for April 8th.