1994 PLP 500 (SCMR)
ASHIQ ALI and 13 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERENMENT OF THE PUNJAB FINANCE
| Citation | 1994 PLP 500 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | ASHIQ ALI and 13 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERENMENT OF THE PUNJAB FINANCE |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 500 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 500 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 500 (SCMR) (ASHIQ ALI and 13 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERENMENT OF THE PUNJAB FINANCE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate (absent) instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑ on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate instructed by Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Notice of contempt of Court‑‑‑Non‑payment of arrears of special Research Allowance of specified period to petitioner despite orders of the Supreme Court‑‑‑Respondent stating before Court that Government would pay petitioner's arrears of Special Research Allowance but expressing apprehension, that as a result of orders of Supreme Court the officers similarly situated as petitioners might also claim Special Research Allowance and burden, on that account on Government exchequre would be very heavy‑‑‑Such apprehension, held, proceeded on misconception for Supreme Court had clarified such aspect by observing that only those officers who had challenged interpretation of Finance Department by filing appeal before Service Tribunal could alone benefit from the judgment of Service Tribunal or Supreme Court and none else‑‑‑Categorical statement of respondent before Supreme Court that Special Research Allowance would be paid to petitioners would render it unnecessary to continue with the Contempt proceedings‑‑ Notice of Contempt of Court issued to respondent, thus, stood discharged in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.‑‑‑In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21‑11‑1993 the Secretary, Finance, Government of Punjab has appeared before us in person. He was called upon to explain why the petitioners had not been paid, despite the orders of the Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos.253 to 256 of 1987 dated 11‑12‑1988 and Civil Review Petitions Nos.24‑R to 27‑R of 1989 dated 8‑10‑1989 the arrears of Special Research Allowance from 1‑1‑1985 to 30‑6‑1987. The explanation he gave for the default was not very intelligible. Anyhow he clearly stated before the Court that the Government would pay the petitioners' arrears of Special Research Allowance for the period from 1‑1‑1985 to 30‑6‑1987. An apprehension, however, was expressed that as a result of the orders of the Court Officers similarly situated as the petitioners may also claim Special Research Allowance and the burden, on this account, on the Government exchequer will be very heavy.
2. This apprehension proceeds on a misconception. In fact in our order, dated 4‑10‑1989 we had already clarified the position on this aspect of the matter by observing: "The judgments of the Courts bind only the parties to the litigation. Hence all these officers who had challenged the interpretation of the Finance Department by filing one appeal before the Service Tribunal can alone benefit from the judgment of the Tribunal or the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos.253 to 256 of 1987 and none else, unless 'the Government out of its own benevolence wishes to extend its benefit to them."
3. In view of the categorical statement made before the Court by the Secretary, Finance Department that the arrears of Special Research Allowance will be paid to the petitioners, it is not necessary to continue with these proceedings and this notice of contempt stands discharged. AA./A‑1077/S . Notice discharged.