RAWALPINDI, Sept 24: Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench here on Wednesday issued notices to the respondents after accepting the appeal of former Punjab chief minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi for restoring his election petition that was dismissed by the court for non-prosecution on September 19.

Justice Abdul Shakoor Paracha of the LHC admitted the appeal of the lawyer of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and issued notices to the respondents for October 24, the next hearing date.

In his appeal for the restoration of the election petition, the former Punjab chief minister said he was never intimated by the court about the fixation of the case and since he was settled in Gujrat he could not get information in this regard.

He said he was never even heard in the case and besides the case was not in the final stage. The petition was at the stage of serving notices and he came to know about the dismissal of his petition on non-prosecution basis through newspapers.

The LHC had earlier disposed of the election petition which was filed in April and was lastly taken up in June after the petitioner or his lawyer did not turn up in the court.

In his election petition Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi has maintained that he contested February 18 general elections from NA-61 (Chakwal-II) and obtained 91,769 votes but the returning officer declared Sardar Faiz Tamman successful with 92,201 votes.

He had petitioned in the court that the rejected votes were not counted and many votes cast in his favour were rejected. He said a total of 11,396 votes were rejected but many of them were valid votes. He also alleged that the polling agents of the respondent harassed his voters and stopped them from casting votes at many polling stations in rural Chakwal.

He has prayed to the court that all the rejected votes should be recounted and the results notified by the election commission be set aside.

Meanwhile the division bench of the LHC comprising Justice Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Justice Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah directed the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) to implement the six-year-old orders of the Federal Services Tribunal (FST) and promote an employee to the next grade in accordance with the seniority list.

The court expressed displeasure over the delay in the implementation of the orders and directed an official of the HIT present in the court to implement the orders of the FST in 30 days and intimate the petitioner.

Abdul Qadoos, in his intra court appeal before the bench through his lawyer Mohammad Fazil Siddiqui, maintained that he was not promoted to BPS-16 in 2001 despite the fact that two of his juniors were promoted. He said the services tribunal decided the case in his favour in September 2002 but there had been no implementation of the orders.

He further stated in his petition that he moved the tribunal for implementation of the orders in 2002, but in 2006, the Supreme Court gave a verdict that orders could be implemented through high courts instead of the FST.

He moved the LHC but his petition was rejected on technical point that he filed the petition after the lapse of four years of the decision.