2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Ikram respondent retired as Assistant Engineer from Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited Department vide order, dated 26-8-2003 the House No.C-1/10 located in Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited Wireless Colony, Rawalpindi was allotted to him as an official accommodation. He was allowed by the employer to retain the said residence subject to payment of normal rent vide order, dated 3-8-2004 and he paid the same till December, 2004.

2. Writ Petition No.29.53 of 2006 was filed by respondent alleging that the appellants have stopped the payment of his pension w.e.f. January, 2005 with the prayer to issue direction to the appellants to release the pension of the respondent in which learned Single Judge in Chamber called for comments from the present appellants, who stated in their comments that respondent has failed to vacate the afore-said premises despite notice dated 30-4-2004. He was liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.9,500 per month and w.e.f. 24-1-2006 at the rate of Rs.14,250 per month and due to the non-payment, his pension has been stopped.

3. The learned Single Judge in Chamber vide impugned order dated 6-5-2008 directed the appellants to deduct the amount of rent at the rate of Rs.3,250 per month w.e.f. 1-1-2005 till the date of vacation and delivery of possession as undertaken by the respondent in connected Civil Revision No.346 of 2005 and the balance amount pertaining to the pension of the respondent was ordered to be released.

4. The learned Single Judge in Chamber in the impugned order has observed that respondent continued residing on the basis of injunctive order and the last order, having been passed by this Court in the year 2005. Keeping in view all the attending circumstances including the case of similarly placed employee namely, Asmat Ullah (which is similar in nature), the learned Single Judge in Chamber held that claim of the appellants is exorbitant and the normal rent which includes 10% increase comes to Rs.3,260 per month.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent has retained the possession of the quarter in question despite his retirement as far back as on 26-8-2003, so the rent claimed by the appellants in accordance with the relevant rules and Policy of the appellants-Department.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants have failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order so as to compel us to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber in its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction. Resultantly, there is no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, we may observe that as per undertaking given by the respondent before the learned Single Judge in Chamber in a connected Civil Revision No.346 of 2005, he was bound to deliver the possession of premises in question to the appellants on or before 5-6-2008. If the respondent has not honoured his undertaking the appellants are at liberty to move for contempt proceedings against him and also proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

7. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./P-9/L Order accordingly.