Pakistan Case Law← Search
K.L.R. 2009 Civil Cases 74

Malik Abdul Qayyum vs Raja Muhammad Siddique

CitationK.L.R. 2009 Civil Cases 74
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.W.P. No. 1343 of 2007
Date2003-10-15
Judge(s)M. A. Zafar
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

M. A. ZAFAR, J.- Malik Abdul Qayyum petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 stating therein that he was appointed as Clerk in Town Committee, Kahuta in 1982. After promulgation of Local Government Ordinance, 2001 the petitioner's services were transferred to Union Council and he has been performing his duty as Secretary Union Council Dakhali since 2003 from where he had been drawing his salary but respondent No. 1 illegally and without lawful authority has stopped his salary from December' 2005 and despite a letter dated 15.5.2007 written to Assistant Director Local Government, the salary of the petitioner is not being released. Following prayer has been made in this writ petition:- "That this writ petition may be accepted and the respondents may be directed to release the salary-of the petitioner w.e.f. December 2005 and onwards."

2. This writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 10.9.2008, respondent No. 3 has also filed his report and parawise comments and according to the said reply petitioner is absent from his duty since November 2005 as such monthly salary could not be paid to him. Nazim of Union Council Dakhali, Tehsil Kahuta, who has been arrayed in this writ petition as respondent No. 1, present in Court in clear terms stated that petitioner is not attending his office since November, 2005 and due to this reason no salary was paid to him on account of his absence from the duty.

The stand taken by respondent No. 3 in his reply, which has been reiterated by respondent No. 1 present in Court, has not been controverted by the petitioner, who is present |n Court or by his counsel rather on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is ready to join his duty if so directed by this Court.

3. Admittedly, petitioner is absent from his duty since November; 2005, he has not performed any work or duty and thus' he is not entitled to claim any salary from the respondents. How he can claim salary for a period for which he has not even worked or attended the office. Resultantly, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search