JUDGMENT This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby he affirmed the decision of Civil Judge lst Class, Karachi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for declaration and injunction against the appellants, Pakistan Western Railway Authorities.
1. The plaintiff-respondent at the time of filing the suit was Relieving Station Master, drawing a salary of Rs. 290 per month. He was in lawful possession of Quarter No. 74-1, R-6, Keamari since the year 1958 at monthly rent of Rs. 2.30. In the year 1963 the respondent quarters were transferred and fixed at Hyderabad and he was given a notice to vacate the quarter at Keamari, Karachi. The respondent made a representation against the vacation of the quarter but no reply was sent to him. In December, 1965 the respondent was declared to be in an unauthorised occupation of the said quarter and under the rules framed by the Railway Authorities under para. 157 of the Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, half the salary of the respondent amounting to Rs.
145 per month was deducted by way of penalty for remaining in occupation of the said quarter from December, 1963. The respondent accordingly filed the suit for declaration and injunction that the deduction of his salary by way of penalty was illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge lst Class, Karachi decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent and held that the deduction of the total emoluments of the respondent was illegal and void as rule 8 of the Rent Rules under which the deduction was made was inoperative being inconsistent with rule 137 of the Pakistan Railway Establishment Code and also being repugnant to Article 178 of the Constitution 1962. The Civil Judge also issued an injunction against the Railway for realising the said amount as penalty. 2.
The Railway Authorities preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree in District Court, Karachi, but the said appeal was dismissed and it was held in the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karachi that this deduction in respect of half the salary was in violation of the provisions of clause (d) of subsection (2) and section 7 and section 11 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Against this decision the Railway Authorities have filed this second appeal.
3. Similar cases of deduction of half the salary of Railway employees came up before the Supreme Court in .
These appeals have since been decided on 3rd September 1973 as per judgment reported in PLD 1974 SCI. It has been appointed out in the judgment, that under section 7 (l) of the Payment of Wages Act deduction from wages has been allowed only for the house accommodation supplied by the employer. Under section 11 it has been provided that such accommodation. The value of the house accommodation in case of respondent vould be Rs. 2.30 which he was paying irrespective of the fact that he was required to vacate the premises and this value would not increase merely because the respondent was declared to be in an unauthorised occupation. It was accordingly held by the Supreme Court that, "after carefully con sidering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that the Railway authorities are not entitled to deduct more amount than that has been provided in clause (PLD 1961 Kar. 349, is that statutes shall not be unreasonable. In former days a statute contrary to natural equity or reason was considered void but at present this dictum that a statute contrary to natural equity and reason or repugnant or impossible to be performed is void, is understood to mean that the Courts are to give such statute a reasonable construction (Maxwell Interpretation of Statutes). Under the Pakistan Government Railway Code for Engineering Department Rulees, 1915, the rent charged for unauthorised subletting of a Railway quarter is 67% of the capital outlay of the quarter. But at the same time under Rule 8 of the Rent Rules, 50% of the salary can be deducted in case of Railway employees in occupation of the Railway quarters, originally considered to be lawful. The rule is thus obviously unreasonable 6. This rule also appears to be in conflict with Article 178 of the Constitution of Pakistan, (1962) which was in force at relevant time. Under sub-para. (3) of Article 176 any rule infringing the provisions of this Article will be ultra vires, such rules shall be so framed as to ensure that the terms and conditions of service of a person (in so far as these terras and conditions relate to remuneration or age fixed for superannuation) are not varied to his disadvantage. Under the rule 8, under certain conditions when he is declared to be in an unauthorised occupation of Railway quarters, a Railway employee is to be paid only half the salary. Thus the conditions of the service relating to the salary of the employee are altered under this rule to his disadvantage. In PLD 1969 Lah. 438 it has been observed that subordinate legislation, in so far as it is repugnant to the Constitutional provision, cannot be given effect to. In PLD 1970 SC 247, it was held, that the entitlement to prescribed scale of pay, was a condition of service which would not be revised to the disadvantage of a Government servant under Article 178, clause 3 of the Constitution, lt may also be pointed out that the provision for deducting half the salary being m the nature of a penalty or fine could not be imposed on an employee without giving him opportunity of being heard and any such procedure of ordering deduction of half the salary without a show-cause notice, would be against the principles of natural justice.
7. As a result of the above discussion hardly any grounds are made out for interference with the order of the Additional District Judge, Karachi. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed but no order is made as to costs under the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.