2002 PLP 1833 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IDREES ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1833 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Lateef, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IDREES ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1833 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1833 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Lateef, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1833 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IDREES ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ilyas for Petitioner.
- Rao Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.2 & 3‑‑ Suit for declaration‑‑‑Interim injunction, grant of‑‑‑Plaintiff/petitioner serving as Railway Guard in Grade II in Pakistan Railways having been removed from service, he filed appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Plaintiff filed suit to the effect that he was entitled to retain residential quarter provided to him by Railway till decision of his appeal against removal from service pending before Service Tribunal ‑‑‑Alongwith suit a stay application was also filed by plaintiff for issuance of interim injunction restraining defendant Railway from interfering with his possession over the house till final disposal of his suit‑‑‑Courts below concurrently dismissed the stay application‑‑‑Plaintiff had urged that vide Notification issued by Railways dismissed employees could retain accommodation on payment of normal rent till disposal of their service appeal or period of six months and in case of further retention commercial rent could be charged from them‑‑‑Notification related to officers dismissed from service and did not apply to employees of Railways who did‑not fall in the category of officers‑‑‑Plaintiff/petitioner being Railway Guard in Grade‑II not falling in category of officers, said Notification was not applicable to his case and he could not claim retention of quarter on payment of commercial rent on basis of Notification‑‑ Period of holding over according to the notification would be treated as unauthorized and commercial rent would be charged for that period‑‑‑Provision of ' charging commercial rent was merely a penal provision which did not create legal right in favour of person holding over on basis of which a declaration or injunction could be issued.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition is directed against order dated 22‑1‑2002 passed by Muhammad Aslant Chaudhry learned District Judge, Khanewal affirming the order of Civil Judge, Khanewal passed on 4‑1‑2002 whereby stay application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit against there respondents for a declaration that as Railways Guard Grade‑II, he is entitled to retain Quarter No.84‑B, Railway Colony, Khanewal till the decision of his appeal against removal from service, pending before Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore. By way of consequential relief it was prayed that on the basis of Notice No.89/Q of 2001 dated 26‑4‑2001, issued by respondent No.5, the respondents be restrained from evicting him from the aid quarter till decision of his said service appeal.
3. Alongwith the suit a stay application was also moved .for issuance of an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the said quarter till the final disposal of the civil suit.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that orders of both the Courts below suffer from non‑reading and misreading of Notification No.716‑W/O/2/Policy dated 10‑7‑2000 according to which dismissed employees can retain the accommodation on payment of g normal rent till the disposal of their service appeal or for a period of six months whichever is less and in case further retention commercial rent could be charged from them.
5. The petitioner had given undertaking that he is willing to pay commercial rent and that both the Courts did not go through the contents of the aforesaid Notification and had passed the impugned orders without applying judicial mind.
6. The revision is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. I have perused the civil revision alongwith its Annexures and I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. A perusal of aforesaid Notification which is Annexure‑B.1, shows that it relates to officers dismissed from service and does not apply to employees of Pakistan Railway, who do not fall in the category of officers. The petitioner was admittedly a Railway Guard in Grade‑II and did not fall in the category of officers. The said Notification was, therefore, not applicable to the case of the petitioner and he could not claim retention of quarter on payment of commercial rent on the basis of the said Notification.
9. For the sake of argument if it be assumed that the said Notification applies to the case of the petitioner in that event too it is stated therein that the period of holding over shall be treated as unauthorized and commercial rent will be charged for that period. It is merely a penal provision which does not create legal right in favour of the person holding over, on the basis of which a declaration or injunction could be issued.
10. The civil revision is without any merit, 'it is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1285/L Revision dismissed.