P L D 1957 (W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YUNUS‑Petitioner Versus THE TALAGANG MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Habibullah Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YUNUS‑Petitioner Versus THE TALAGANG MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Habibullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 (W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YUNUS‑Petitioner Versus THE TALAGANG MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- G. S. Gideon for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ali, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911), S. 81‑--Scope of section
Money due to Municipal Committee from its employee on account of excess payment in respect of salary‑Not money claimable under the Act. Section 81 is applicable only where money is due to a committee, or claimable by it under the Punjab Muni cipal Act. There is no provision in the entire Act under which over‑payment in respect of salary and allowances to its employee can be ‑claimed by a Municipal Committee. Such a demand is clearly outside the scope of section 81, and as such the claim of the committee cannot be regarded as money claimable under the Act.
Judgment & Decree
KHAN HABIBULLAH KHAN, J.‑--In this revision petition the sole question for determination is, whether a certain amount of money alleged to be due to a Municipal Committee, from its employee on account of over‑payment in respect of his salary and allowances is recoverable under section 81 of the Punjab Municipal Act. A 2nd Class Magistrate of Talagang has held, that action can be taken against the defaulter, under the Act. The Sessions Judge Campbellpur, who heard the revision petition, agreed with the Magistrate and declined to interfere. A revision petition has been now filed in this Court. The petitioner is one Muhammad Yunus, an ex‑Secretary of the Municipal Committee Talagang. The brief facts of the case are, that while checking the accounts of the committee, it came to the notice of the Auditor that a sum of Rs. 1251‑3‑9 was over‑paid to the petitioner in respect of his pay and allowances. Since the petitioner did not admit the claim, the committee moved a 2nd Class Magistrate for action under section .81 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The Magistrate, after hearing the parties, decided to proceed under section 81, and ordered attachment of the property of the petitioner. The words "any arrears of any tax, water‑rate, rent, fee or any other money claimable by a committee under this Act" of section 81 are so clear, that the question in contro versy present no difficulty whatsoever. It is conceded by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, who is appearing for the respondent, that the claim of the committee is neither an arrear of tax, nor an arrear of water‑rate, or rent, or fee. He thinks that it may be covered by the words "money claimable by a committee." It is true that the demand is money claimable by the committee, but it is not "money claimable by the committee under the Act." Section 81 is applicable only where money is due to a committee, or claimable by it under the Punjab Municipal Act. There is no provision in the entire Act under which over‑payment in respect of salary and allowances to its employee can be claimed by a Municipal Committee. Such a demand is clearly outside the scope o f section 81, and as such the present claim of the committee cannot be regarded by any stretch of imagination as money claimable under .the Act. As to the recovery of the demand in dispute, the committee can claim it by an action in a Civil Court. The penal provision of section 81 is not applicable at all. The result is that the revision petition is accepted and the order of the 2nd Class Magistrate Talagang dated 28th January 1956 is set aside as being illegal. No order to costs. K.B.A. Revision accepted.