2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The learned counsel of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner did not implead F.A. & C.A.O. Headquarter Pakistan Railway Lahore as respondent, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. When the learned counsel of the petitioner is confronted with this situation, he requests orally to implead F.A. & C.A.O. as respondent. Request is allowed. F.A. & C.A.O. was impleaded as respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be accepted and the act of respondents to stop, discontinue adjust or reimburse itself the pension of the petitioner may graciously be declared as illegal, null and void based on mala fide, unwarranted in law and having no legal effect, with a consequential relief directing the respondents to release and continue the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 1-4-2001, the date of withholding and onwards regularly and on-monthly basis, without any deduction in the interest of justice, and fairplay. It is also humbly prayed that ad interim relief in the form of payment of pension to the petitioner till the final decision and determination of the writ petition may also be allowed. The costs may also be awarded."

3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents have withheld the pension of the petitioner without any justification. He further submits that respondents withheld the pension of the petitioner without passing any order and without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, action of the respondents is without lawful authority.

4. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No.22 of 2001 dated 23-4-2001 which was registered at Police Station Railway Workshop Mughalpura, Lahore under Sections 419/420/468/471/34, P.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner filed earlier writ petition qua the same subject-matter which was dismissed by this Court on 13-9-2001. He further submits that petitioner's name is not mentioned in the contents of the F.I.R. However, name of the petitioner was mentioned in the said case by the Investigating Officer during the pendency of the investigation.

5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority as the petitioner is not involved in the said case: He further submits that even if the petitioner is involved in the said case, till the petitioner is convicted by the competent Court the respondents have no lawful authority to withhold the pension of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was returned to the petitioner with the remarks that the petitioner should file alongwith the appeal the impugn order. He further submits that sanction of the respondents is without lawful authority and the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: (1) Province of the Punjab v. Ch. Muhammad Akhtar (1986 PLC (C.S.) 1015). (2) Syed Munir Hussain Shah v. Secretary Livestock Dairy (1995 PLC (C.S.) 943). (3) The Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan and another (PLD 1973 SC 514). (4) Muhammad Akram Butt. v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1978 Karachi 132). (5) Rehmat Ullah v. The Secretary, Evacuee Property Trust Board (1972 SCMR 168). (6) Muhammad Ashraf v. Dr. Muhammad Zaman and others (1994 SCMR 249). (7) Anjuman-e-Ahmadia, Sargodha v. The D.C., Sargodha (PLD 1966 SC 639). (8) The Majlis-i-Intizamia, v, The Secretary, Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1963 SC 109).

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

7. In case the contents of the writ petition and parawise comments are put in juxta position, then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of disputed questions of facts and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younas Khan's case (1993 SCMR 618). It is also settled principle of law that pension is a right of the petitioner and is no more a bounty of the State as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Said Khan's case (PLD 1973 SC 514). Neither the petitioner nor the respondents attached the order of the competent authority qua the withholding the pension of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No.5 who is directed to look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with the law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner preferably within two months after receiving the order of this Court and after verifying the record of the respondents or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to do the needful in terms of the aforesaid direction of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.5 in his office at 11.00 a.m. on 20-11-2002 who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and after verifying the record of the respondents preferably within two months or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law preferably within two months in terms of the aforesaid direction of this Court till 20-1-2003. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned Legal Advisor of the respondents is directed to notify the order to respondent No.5 for necessary action and compliance. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. S.A.K./M-1582/L Order accordingly.