2000PLC(C (PLP)

The petitioner has filed application before respondent No.1 for release of his salary of lest five months on 22‑10‑1998. Respondent No. l did not deny this fact that the petitioner has not filed the application before him. The reply of para 10 reveals that no formal ‑application was filed before him through proper channel. The reply of para 10 further reveals as follows:‑‑‑ "In case the petitioner has any grievance, under law, the same will be enquired under disciplinary rules if received through proper channel. The petitioner's counsel states that petitioner has raised specific allegation against respondent 2 in para. 2 of his writ petition and the petitioner has got no choice except to send application to respondent No. 1. 2 The learned Deputy Attorney‑General contended that writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. He further stated that petitioner did not attend the office and he was voluntarily absent from office, therefore respondents were justified to stop the salary of petitioner. He further states that application filed .by the petitioner before respondent: No. 1 on 22‑10‑1998 was also in violation of Rules and Regulations as the petitioner has sent copy of same to the different public functionaries including the Secretary Housing, Government of Pakistan and Wafaqi Mohtisab Ala. 2‑A. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. The objection raised by the learned Deputy Attorney General has no force as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1981 SC 612 and Mrs. Mussarat Ch. v. Government of Punjab, etc. (C.P. No. 1685‑L of 1998) This Court has ample powers to give direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. The powers of Court have not been taken away by Article 212 of the Constitution in presence of Article‑4 of the Constitution to give direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law. It is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is not in accordance with law as the application was submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.l on 22‑10‑1998 through registered A.D. that is why respondent No.l in his parawise comments did not deny this fact. The only objection was raised that the application was not sent through proper channel. After addition of Article 2A in the Constitution, it is the duty and obligation of the Courts to decide the cases on merits instead of technicalities as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (PLD 1989 SC 532). It is inherent right of the petitioner that his application must be decided by respondent No. l within reasonable time in accordance with law but he failed to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law till date. It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the act of Court.

3. Let a copy of writ petition be sent to respondent No. l who shall decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, preferably within one month, after receiving the order of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to hand over copy of writ petition alongwith copy of parawise comments, who shall send the same to respondent No. l for necessary action and compliance. . H.B.T./A-52/L Order accordingly.