' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The petitioner has filed writ petition with the prayer that the respondents had withheld the pensionary benefits of the petitioner without' any justification. Respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments, vide order dated 6-1-2003. The respondents, failed to attach any documents along with the report and parawise comments to show that the petitioner had sold any plot or respondents had initiated any inquiry against the petitioner before his retirement or after his retirement within the prescribed period of one year. Respondents were directed to substantiate the contents of the comments with documents. The order dated 31-1-2003 further reveals that the respondents also did not pursue the matter in accordance with law as is evident from report and parawise comments filed by respondent No,2. The learned Law Officer was directed to supplement the report and parawise comments with documents within fortnight. The representative of the respondents was directed to do the needful within the prescribed period.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits under instructions that respondents have released the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner was penalized by the inactions of the respondents, therefore, special costs he awarded to the petitioner to knock the door of this Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon Syed Yagoob Shah v. XEN PESCO (WAPDA) Peshawar (PLD 2002 SC 667-) and Muhammad Masood Joya v. Government of Punjab and others (2000 PLC (C.S.) 864).
3. The learned Law Officer submits that the petitioner's case is pending on account of certain formalities, therefore, pensionary benefits were not released to the petitioner in time.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. Since respondents have released the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, therefore, there is no live issue existed between the parties in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Majid's case (1971 Law Notes 265). However, it is pertinent to mention here that poor employees have to knock the door of the court on account of inaction of the public functionary. It is settled principle of law that no body should be penalized by the inactions of the public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination (PLD 1994 Lah. 3). After addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of their subordinates without fear, favour and nepotism within a reasonable time as per C principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268). In this view of the matter let a copy of the writ petition be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Province who is directed to issue directions to all the concerned Secretaries and Head of the Departments that cases of pension of the employees shall be finalized in terms of the law preferably within one month. In case the public functionaries fail to release the pension of the employees within the prescribed period without any reason then the competent authority shall, have to take action against the official/officer who is responsible for not releasing the pension of the employees within the prescribed period under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It is pertinent to mention here that the work load of this Court is increasing day by day on account of the inactions of the public functionaries. Keeping in view this aspect of the case the Chief Secretary of the Province is directed to give necessary instructions to all the concerned so that each and every public functionary must act in accordance with law which is a mandate of the Constitution in view of Article 4 of the Constitution read with Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The honourable Supreme Court has laid down a principle that no body is above the Constitution and every pubic functionary is bound to obey the command of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Zahoor Illahi's case (PLD .1975 SC 383).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is IF disposed of with the aforesaid observations.