' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant constitutional petition prayed for a declaration that act of the respondents to stop the payment of petitioner's pension is illegal, void and of no legal consequence and they may be required to release his pension.
2. A short factual background of the case is that petitioner joined Judicial service as a Civil Judge, without doing P.C.S. (Judicial) and by passage of time he was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, and gained superannuation age on 6-10-1997. He submitted an application to the Additional Chief Secretary Punjab for extension of his period of occupation of Government residence already in his possession (52-B, GOR-III) Shadman Colony, Lahore. This application of the petitioner was not attended and he consequently filed a constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,2777 of 1997). This Court requisitioned the reply from the respondents therein and granted interim relief protecting his possession over the official accommodation. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was appointed as Judge, Special Court (Anti-Terrorism Lahore-III) to hold the office till further order vide notification dated 17-2-1998 and he joined the assignment. Since the petitioner was to be provided official residence, he continued to occupy the House. No,52-B, GOR-III and his possession was never disputed by the respondents. Service of the petitioner was terminated on 17- 4-1999 and he seized to be Judge Special Court (Anti-Terrorism) with effect from 21-4-1999.
Respondents through letter, dated 10-5-1999 required the petitioner to vacate the official accommodation in his possession within 14 days and he consequently filed another Writ Petition No,8575 of 1999. This Court again granted the injunctive order against the respondents, protecting his possession, as he had claimed protection of para. (22-A) of the Government Policy regulating the possession of official accommodations, whereunder in case of dismissal/resignation/retirement from service/ transfer, the Government official in possession of official residence was entitled to retain the possession thereof for a period of two months. The constitutional petition remained pending till 2-4-2001 when the same was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within a period of 3 months i,e, till 2-7-2001. The petitioner undisputedly vacated the premises on 14-7-2001 but his pension was stopped by the respondents under para.30(iv) of the Government policy in order to adjust 60% of his basic salary towards penal rent of his occupation of the house, unauthorizedly and illegally. The petitioner being aggrieved of the act of the respondent filed instant 3rd constitutional petition, with the relief noted above. Respondents in response to notice by this Court have appeared and were represented through the learned Additional Advocate-General.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The only question which hinges for determination of this Court, is whether the petitioner was occupying the official accommodation unauthorizedly or illegally. Simple answer to it, is that he was permitted by this Court to continue with the possession under a restraint order thus, he was not occupying the house unauthorizedly. Dictionary/literal meaning of the word "illegal" is unlawful and in the given circumstance of this case, the possession of the petitioner over the house in his occupation was not unlawful. This question was earlier dealt by this Court in the case of Sheikh Lutaf-ur-Rehman v.
Government of the Punjab and others Writ Petition No,20833 of 1999 which was decided on 28-1- 2003 and relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:--- "This Court vide its order, dated 5-11-1999 (C.M. No,2 of 1999) restrained the respondent- Department from dispossessing the petitioner, in the meanwhile". The petitioner has thus continued with the possession under injunctive order passed by this. Court and the department, therefore, cannot be permitted to charge the penal rent from the petitioner for this, period."
4. The above reproduced judgment of this Court left no room to hold that occupation of the petitioner over his official accommodation was unauthorized or illegal, even in presence of injunctive order by this Court. Assuming that stance of the respondents is correct and they are permitted to deduct/adjust 60% of petitioner's basic salary towards the penal rent, it would amount to sit in appeal against the prohibitory order earlier passed by this Court though the same was never got recalled or challenged by the respondents before any higher forum but this course is not permissible under law.. Dismissal of this petition will inject illegality to the possession, protected under a. Lawful/binding .Order and had this injunctive order been vacated/recalled by this Court or the Court of appeal, it would not have turned, the period of possession during the currency of stay order, as illegal. The said order granted in favour of the petitioner was not vacated at any stage of those proceedings and his Writ Petition No,8575 of 1999 was disposed of on his -own concession to vacate the premises within the above referred period thus, I have no ambiguity that possession of the petitioner over official accommodation never became unauthorized or illegal, hence the respondents cannot deduct/adjust any penal rent under their policy, dated 16-10-2002.
5. For the reasons noted above, instant petition is bound to succeed and is accordingly accepted and writ as prayed, is issued with no order as to costs.