' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through this petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 the petitioners prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed Constitutional Petition No.2314 of 2011 with the prayer that the. Respondent No.1 be directed to restore the firewood quota, which was permissible to them being employees of the Forest Department according to Forest Manual Volume-II and letter dated 2-10-2009. It was further prayed that the respondents be restrained from deducting the special allowance of 20% from their salaries. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 3-2-2011 in the following terms:-- "Be that as it may, the petitioners have already availed an alternative efficacious remedy for the redressal of their grievance. However, the representation of the petitioners dated 20-12-2010 has not been decided so far. It is the bounden duty of all public servants to discharge their duties strictly in accordance with law and relevant rules and regulations. Hence, the instant petition, is being disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1/Secretary Forestry Wildlife Fisheries Department, Lahore to decide the representation of the petitioners, dated 20-12-2010, strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, at the earliest, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court."
3. According to the version of the petitioners this order was not complied with by the respondent No.1 and the petitioners were constrained to file Criminal Original No.649-W of 2011 which was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners vide order dated 19-5-2011 which is reproduced as under:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide letter dated 16-5-2011, the employees of the Forest Department have been given assurance for payment of 2-per cent allowance in lieu of firewood quota.
(2) In view of the said letter, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the instant criminal original. Hence, the same is dismissed as withdrawn."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary the grievance of the petitioners is not redressed; that the respondents are wilfully and deliberately violating the orders of the Court; that the conduct of the respondents is contumacious and deserves to be taken serious notice of; that the respondents did not take any step to comply with the orders of the Court; that due to the conduct of the respondents dignity of this Court is at stake; that strict action may be taken against the contemnors under the law.
5. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the Law Officer of the Forest Department submitted that no contempt of Court was committed by the respondents; that in compliance with the direction of this Court dated 3-2-2011 the respondent No.1 sent reference to the Finance Department supporting the demand of the petitioners but the Finance Department vide letter dated 23-11-2011 declined the same; that the said decision of the Finance Department was duly communicated to the petitioners; that so far as the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, it is contended by the learned Law Officer that it is just a political commitment otherwise the Parliamentary Secretary has no authority to give assurance/guarantee for grant of 20% allowance in lieu of firewood quota to the forest employees; that the 20% allowance and the firewood quota has wrongly been linked by the petitioners; that the supply of firewood quota is not binding on the Forest Authorities as envisaged under Rule 15.10(1) of the West Pakistan Forest Manual, 1964 the Divisional Forest Officer may fix months of summer or winter as per local conditions of supply of firewood; that there is no provision for firewood benefit in the form of 20% allowance; that 20% allowance in lieu of firewood quota was being paid to the employees being the part of the Administrative department; that the Chief Conservator made a request to the Finance Department for provision of 20% special allowance which was declined by the Finance Department vide letter dated 13-12-2010; that the employees of the office of Chief Conservator of Forests submitted affidavits that in case the Special allowance is not recommended by the Finance Department, they will be liable to refund the same; that on the regret of Finance Department the recovery is being made and four employees have already refunded the same. In the end, it was submitted that the respondents being public functionaries and civil servant cannot even think about disobedience of any of the orders of the Court.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. The main prayer of the petitioners in the Constitutional Petition No.2314 of 2011 was to restore the firewood allowance in big cities to the employees of Forest Department in pursuance of Rules No.15.10 (2) of the Forest Manual Volume-II. This Court vide order dated 3-2-2011 had not accorded the relief prayed for by the petitioners rather issued direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 20-12-2010 strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. Pursuant to that direction the respondent No.1 sent reference to the Finance Department which vide U.O. No. (L & DD/F& W) 2-350/ 11-Ft dated 23-11-2011 declined the same in the following terms:-- "Keeping in view the financial constraints, Finance. Department is not in a position to afford extra burden as sufficient relief has already been provided to all employees of Punjab government in the shape of revision of pay scales and allowances as well as Adhoc Relief Allowance 2011 @ 15% of running basic pay of Basic Pay Scales-2008. Hence, Finance Department regrets."
8. After this decline the respondent No.1 is not vested with any power to restore the firewood allowance at his own level. So far as the prayer of the petitioners that 20% be given to the them in lieu of firewood quota no such rule is available in the West Pakistan Forest Manual, 1964. Rule 15.10
(1) along with 15.10(2) of the Manual ibid referred to by the petitioners are hereby reproduced as under:-- (15).10 (1) Non-gazetted forest officials fouring or living in or immediately adjacent to the forest, may remove for their personal use, dry and fallen wood fit only for fuel, free of cost, making their own arrangements for collection.
(2) For non-gazetted forest officials living at a distance from the forest, the Division Forest Officer may if the demand is sufficient, open a small firewood depot Forest Officials requiring firewood will be allowed to purchase wood from this depot at a price to be calculated by the Divisional Forest Officer and sufficient to cover the following charges: ' Cost of cutting and carriage, with octroi or other incidental charges plus annas two per mound of firewood to cover loss by dryage and loss in retailing.
' The direct supply of firewood from the forest to the residence of a forest official without passing through the depot is prohibited unless full rates per cart-load or per camel-load, etc. Have been paid in advance."
9. Bare perusal of the said rules make, it clear that no where 20% allowance in lieu of firewood quota was allowed to the non-gazetted employees of the Forest A Department. The petitioners are claiming something not envisaged in the West Pakistan Forest Manual, 1964, therefore, the respondents cannot be forced under the garb of contempt proceedings to do something that is not permitted by the law. As discussed supra this Court had not granted the relief prayed for by the petitioners and a mere direction was issued to the respondents for decision of representation which has been complied with by the respondents. If the petitioners are aggrieved of the decision of the Finance Department regarding decline of their claim they may avail alternate remedy permissible to them .Under the law. Contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for the advantage of one particular party rather initiation of contempt proceedings is to safeguard and protect the institution which creates balance in the society. In case reported as FECTO BELARUS TRACTOR LTD. V.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Finance Economic Affairs and others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 605) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously insisted for initiating contempt proceedings against the officers of C.B.R. As according to him they are responsible for violating the judgment, dated 19th February, 2001, but we are not persuaded to subscribe to his viewpoint; firstly for the reason that the C.B.R. Or its Officers, in the letters, addressed to petitioner from time to time including 10th, 11th May, 2001, 9th April, 2002 had not denied the refund of Customs duty. Sales Tax and Service Charges to the petitioner, secondly in the judgment passed Civil Review Petition No.80 of 1999, dated 19th February, 2001, no direction were made to the respondent-Government as well as C.B.R. For refund of the amount immediately, as observed hereinabove that on accepting the review petition, the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 24th August, 1997 was restored wherein it has been held that petitioner is entitled to for exemption of Customs Duty, Sales Tax and Service Charges in view of authorization letter, dated 26th June, 1996. It is important to note that before the Lahore High Court, the petitioner had not furnished any bank guarantee for the purpose of release of Tractors nor the said Court as well as this Court in the judgment passed in Civil Review Petition, dilated upon the question whether the burden of Customs duty and Sales Tax has been passed on or not by the petitioner to end consumer of Tractors; thirdly, the C.B.R. Had been insisting the petitioner to furnish its accounts, enabling it to make the refund if permissible under the law but petitioner, instead of doing, approach the Court with contempt proceedings, for the purpose of causing harassment to the C.B.R or its Officers; fourthly, entitlement of the petitioner for the refund would be determined in accordance with law as well as practice invoked, which have attained the status of law; fifthly power of punishment for contempt is not used to cast slander or to ridicule any person, but essentially to devise ways and means for doing complete justice with utmost impartiality for the general benefit thereby, promoting public good; so that aggrieved party could fearlessly invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to avail all remedies which are permissible under the law, and to have complete satisfaction of redress as regards wrong done to him."
10. So far as the letter of the Parliamentary Secretary of Forest department regarding assurance of 20% allowance in lieu of firewood quota to the forest employees is concerned, suffice it to say that neither the said Parliamentary Secretary was party in the main Constitutional petition nor in the criminal original. Furthermore, the said assurance was neither endorsed by the representative of respondent No.1 nor by the respondent No.2. It is also important to note that the said letter was itself produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the same was not produced by the respondents in the Court. On the basis of any assurance/ guarantee made by the Parliamentary Secretary who was neither party in the main Constitutional petition nor in the Contempt Petition responsibility of non-implementation of said assurance cannot render the public functionaries to commit Contempt of Court in particular when they neither provided any said assurance no made any statement before the court in this respect.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that no Contempt of Court is made out against the respondents as such the instant petition being devoid of any force stands dismissed.