1. ' Muhammad Younis Thaheem, J.--Petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant Writ Petition with the following prayer:-- "On acceptance of this petition, an appropriate Writ direction this Court may please to: ' Declare that Respondents No, 1 to 4 have got no authority, jurisdiction or mandate in law to withhold and stop the pensionary benefits etc of the petitioner, and therefore ' Direct Respondents No, 1 to 4 to forthwith release the aforesaid pensionary benefits etc of the petitioner forthwith AND Directing respondent to allow him to use the official accommodation already granted to the petitioner till the finalization/payment of the pensionery benefits to the petitioner."
2. 2.Grievance of the petitioner is that after serving as Professor (BPS-21) in the Islamia College, University, he was retired from service on 4.2.2014 but his case was not finalized by the respondents without any legal justification, who approached the higher authorities but no heed was paid to his case. Hence, the instant Constitution petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. 3.Comments from respondents were called wilq submitted the same wherein at Para "C" it has been mentioned that the delay of processing the pension of the petitioner is because of outstanding dues of the University, when it is clear, he will be released his pension. in accordance with law. Likewise, in Para "D". it has been stated that the petitioner was issued different notices for the clearance of his dues, but he failed hence it was because of his conduct that the pension case is yet to be finalized.
4. 4.Arguments heard and record perused.
5. 5.Admittedly, the petitioner has served in the Department of respondents for a considerable long period by giving his blood and sweat to the department but after retirement his case for pension was not considered on the ground that an amount of Rs, 14,11,000/- is outstanding against him and that there are also complaints against the petitioner about misappropriation of an amount of Rs, 27,98,600/-. As per 5.1 of West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963, all the authorities dealing with applications for pensions under these rules should bear in mind that delay in the payment of pension involves peculiar hardship and it is essential to ensure that a Government Servant begins to receive his pension on the date on which it become due. Likewise, as per 5.2 of the Rules ibid, the Head of Department should take action for initiating the case of Gazette Officer one year before a Government servant is due to retire so that pensi6n may be sanctioned a month before the date of his retirement. Similarly in a letter Bearing No, SOSR-III(FD)4-36/76 Dated 28.3.1996, issued by Government of NWFP Finance Department, directions have been issued to all the Departments for speedy disposal of pension cases before the date of retirement of the concerned employee but the respondents did not bother to process the case of petitioner ignoring the above rules and directions which is clear violation of the said rules. If there was any complaint regarding misappropriation of certain amount against the petitioner, then the department has to initiate/conduct inquiry against the petitioner prior to his retirement but they kept mum during this period and when the petitioner got retired, they raised this objection which is of no use to them as the respondents' Department had allowed the .petitioner vide office order No, 1241 dated 4.2.2014, .to en cash his 365 days leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) by allowing him to work during the same period with . effect from 28.2.2014 to 27.2.2015 and to receive leave pay equal to 365 days in lieu thereof, subject to entitlement either in lump. sum at the time of retirement or month wise at his own option. It has also been mentioned therein 'that the petitioner shall stand retired from the University's service with effect from 27.2.2015 (afternoon) on attaining the age of 60 years which order was issued with the approval of competent authority.. There is no mention of any loan etc outstanding against the petitioner nor any complaint has been mentioned in the said order. If there were some complaints or any amount was outstanding against the petitioner, then they should have not allowed the LPR of petitioner and they had to first recover the said amount from petitioner and then to approve his LPR but instead of doing the needful, they approved the case of petitioner for retirement as per above office order meaning thereby that the Department had no grievance at that time while allowing the LPR of petitioner. Had it been so, then the same should have been mentioned in the said order or it would have been refused by the competent authority. Hence, on this ground the pension of petitioner cannot be stopped. After retirement the whole asset of a Government Servant is his pension upon which he has to run his house and other family members and if he is deprived of the same benefits, then it would amount to his financial killing. It .is nowhere mentioned in Pension Rules that an employee be refrained from pension benefits if there are some complaints or outstanding amount against him. If there is some amount outstanding against the petitioner; then the respondents must adopt legal course giving opportunity to the petitioner of hearing for the said alleged amount but they cannot stop the pension on this sole ground of non- deposit of outstanding amount. In this respect wisdom is derived from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 226 of 2006 decided on 18.5.2006 (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 35), < wherein it has been held that: "It is pathetic condition that Government servants, after having served for a considerable long period during which they give their blood and sweat to the department had to die in a miserable condition on account of non-payment of pension/ pensionary benefits etc. The responsibility, of course, can be fixed upon the persons who were directly responsible for the same but at the same time we are of the opinion that it is an overall problem mostly in every department, where public functionaries failed to play their due role even in accordance with law. Resultantly, good governance is suffering badly. Thus everyone who is responsible in any manner in delaying the case of such retired officers/officials. or widows or orphans children for the recovery of pension/ gratuity and G.P. fund has to be penalized. As their such lethargic action is in violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Admittedly it is against the dignity of a human being that he has to die in miserable condition and for about three years no action has been taken by the concerned quarters in finalizing the pension case and now when the matter came up before the Court, for the first time, they are moving in different directions just to show their efficiency and to clear their position before the Court. Such conduct on their behalf is highly condemnable and cannot be encouraged in any manner."
6. 7.As far as the claim of petitioner that he has paid more than 6,00,000/- on account of salaries of the temporary appointed staff and other expenses incurred by him is concerned, the same relates to factual controversy and this Court cannot entertain factual controversies by exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction and the best forum for the petitioner is to approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievance if he so desired.
7. 8.For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is Indisposed of in the above terms and the respondents are directed to C finalize the case of petitioner immediately in respect of pensionary benefits and release the pension of petitioner.