MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J.- Haji Shaukat Ali Qureshi writ petitioner is a retired employee of the Federal Government of Pakistan who stood retired from the Military Accounts Department on 1- 8-1976. He is in occupation of and residing in house No. 435/S/B.N.E.-III, Shadbagh, Lahore, which is owned by him, Section A of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act. 1958 (hereinafter mentioned as an Aet for .Brevity sake) indicates certain categories of properties which are exempt front levy of property tax under this Act. Die aforesaid section 4 of-the Act was amended by adding thereto sub-section (gg) by the Punjab Immovable Property Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990 which made effective front the 1st July, 1989 whereby the retired Government Servants were exempted from the payment of Property Tax for the residential houses owned and occupied by them as their residences. The grievance of Haji Shaukat Ali writ petitioner is that despite the amendment as noted .Above the retired employees of the Federal Government have been deprived of the said exemption and property tax has been levied on the residential house owned and , occupied by them as their residences and the said tax is being charged, from them. According to him the said sub-section (gg) of section 4 of the Act does not contain: and, contemplate any sort of discrimination between the retired employees of the Punjab Government and-the retired employees of Federal Government. He expressed that he sent the applications to the President and the Prime Minister of Pakistan to redress his grievance which were sent to the concerned department but no action in the matter in his favour has been taken. According to him he has paid the tax for the year 1995-1996. He maintained that the retired employees of the Federal Government and the retired Government servants of the Punjab Government were all the pensioners and the denial of the said exemption to, the former and the grant of the same to the latter was in violation of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, according to which all the citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.
He prayed for the issuance of a direction/writ to the respondents i. e. Secretary to the Government of Punjab, E,:cise and Taxation Department, Lahore, and Section Officer, Tax, Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore, to also exempt the retired Federal Government Servants from the payment of property tax in respect of the residential houses owned and occupied by them for their residences as has been done by the respondents in the case of retired Government Servants of the Punjab Government. In the comments the respondents took up the stand that the amendment effected through sub-section (gg) in section 4 of the Act was beneficial to the retired employees of the Government of the Punjab because according to Clause D of section 2 of the Act the word "Government" stands defined as Government of the Punjab. He maintained that on the application of Haji Shaukat Ali Qureshi petitioner the summary had been sent to ' the Chief Minister Punjab, but no action had been taken, the stand of the adverse party is that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the proposed relief.
2. I have heard the leamed counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the file before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment effected through sub-section (gg) does not project any discrimination between a retired servant for a Federal Government or a retired employee of the Province of the Punjab and that no discrimination can be initiated, projected and effected by the Punjab Government keeping in view Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He added that the State has to provide facilities to its subjects and for that reason the petitioner is entitled to derive the benefit of the exemption introduced through the aforesaid sub-section (gg). He maintained that the definition of "Government" as "Government of the Punjab" has no adverse bearing on the rights of the petitioner as the provisions of the Act have to be implemented and executed by the Government of the Punjab. On the contrary the learned Assistant Advocate General laid the emphasis that the amendment has been effected by the "Government of the Punjab" and for that reason the name is applicable only to the retired employees of Government of the Punjab who are in occupation of the houses owned by them. I am of the view that the interpretation made and the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for Haji Shaukat Ali Qureshi writ petitioner has to prevail. At the very, outset 1 would express that provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution 1973 confer very wide powers on High Court for enforcement of fundamental and legal rights. It would be proper to express that Article 199 of the Constitution provides remedy for the infringement of fundamental and legal rights of the persons. However, the condition precedent to the granting of any relief under the said Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 depends on existing of fundamental and legal right of a person and of infringement of such right.
Further the right which is the foundation of Article 199 of the Constitution is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right recognized by law. A person could be said to be aggrieved when a person was denied a legal right by some one who had legal duty to perform relating to that right which in this case is Government of the Punjab. In the instant matter it is the admitted position that Haji Shaukat Ali writ petitioner is a retired employee of the Federal Government of Pakistan who is the owner of the house which is in his occupation as his residence whose case has been referred to the Chief Minister at a time when the previous regime was in power but no action has been taken till now.
Thus the writ petition is maintainable which was filed on 12-10-1995. At this stage I must express the view that where there are two interpretations I am persuaded to accept that interpretation which is more lenient and favours the subjects of the State as the State has to provide the facilities to the citizens. The relevant provision (gg) incorporated through amendment by the Government of the Punjab about exemption of Property Tax reads "one residential house owned and occupied for his residence by a retired Government Servant". Even if the said amendment has been introduced by .The Government of the Punjab, it is not mentioned therein that the same would be applicable only to the retired servants of Government of the Punjab. The aforesaid definition of word "Government" as "Government of the Punjab" has no relevancy towards the dispute in hand. This being the position Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 shall have to be referred to which is applicable which says that" all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law". Thus all retired employees of Government of the Punjab and- all retired Federal Government Servants are entitled to derive the benefit of the aforesaid exemption of property tax to the house owned and possessed by them as residences.
3. All the retired employees of Federal Government have not to reside within the territorial limits of Islamabad. If any retired Federal employee has chosen to have his residence in Punjab Province and. Is occupying the same he cannot be denied the benefits of the aforesaid provisions mentioned in sub-section (gg). It shall nor be out of place to express that most of the employees of Federal Government have their domicile of Punjab and the persons having' the domicile of different Provinces are employed there who rather are entitled to be employed there. Practically there are for Provinces in Pakistan and obviously Punjab is one of the same. The persons domiciled in Punjab and employed in Federal Government have jo return to Punjab in most of the cases after retirement to lead a peaceful and salubrious life. This being the position discrimination cannot be made in respect of the controversy in hand and desired by the respondents.
4. The wisdom and idea behind the incorporation through amendment of the aforesaid sub- section (gg) is to provide the positive facility and accommodation as well as to afford the better treatment to all the retired employees. The employees give time, blood and their faculties towards the proper, salubrious and workable better administration. With regard to Federal Employees no exception can be taken thereto as they also proceed and act in the same manner. I would be glossing over an important aspect of the matter by expressing that the Federal Employees do not exert for the benefit of some foreign territory. Our beloved country comprises the area of which Punjab is also a Province. The Federal Employees serve whole of the country with respect to the affairs of administration and thus in a way to the extent of the matter(s), the positive benefit is also derived by the Province of the Punjab.
The Federal Employees of different categories like members of District Management Group, Police Service, are posted in Punjab who perform their duties in Punjab. Rather some of Federal Departments have their offices in the Districts of Punjab. In this regard Police Force like Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Income Tax Department, Registration Officers (who have to prepare National Identity Cards) etc. Etc. Are referred to. Further the services are provided to the citizens according to the allocation of quota to the Provinces and other areas. Large number of persons domiciled in Punjab get themselves selected and employed through competition etc., etc. Against Federal posts. Even they are sent to the Provinces on deputation where they perform their duties for considerable time which is a matter of common knowledge for all of us. Most of the Federal Employees construct their houses in Punjab during the tenure of their service and/or even after retirement which they themselves occupy as residences. After retirement the people domiciled in Punjab return to their respective places to lead the comfortable life as the birds fly back to their nests before and after sun-set. The retirement of an employee is the Sun-set of his service. True that a few Federal employees domiciled in other Provinces also settle in Punjab and live in the houses owned by them but their number is too small and can be ignored who even otherwise on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning also serve the province of the Punjab while working in the Federal Secretariat and other places/seats. Likewise a few Federal Employees domicile in Punjab settle in other provinces where they live in their owned houses. Thus this type of balance is in existence. Obviously it is a natural conduct that most of the retiring Federal employees settle in the concerned/relevant province to which they belong, The location of Islamabad is just close to the present territorial limits of the Province of the Punjab and rather the area was acquired from the limits of the previous Province of the Punjab during the days of the erstwhile Province cf 'West Pakistan. Hence most of the Federal employees return to their home province where they start going in their own houses as there is a famous saying "East or West, Home is the best". Thus Federal Employees are also entitled to equitable treatment as provided to the retired employees of Province of the Punjab. Since no discrimination is allowed under Article 25 of the Constitution, 1973 whereby all the citizens are equal before law and entitled to eon, protection of law, both types of retired employees i.e. Retired employees of Province of the Punjab and retired Federal employees have to sail in the same boat and this is the course of the matter to make me hold that the writ petitioner is entitled to the proposed relief. I, therefore, hold that, the exemption contained in the aforesaid sub-section (gg) of section 4 of the Act is also applicable to the retired employees of Federal Government. Thus the petitioner and the other retired employees of Federal Government who own and possess as residences their houses are also not liable to pay the Property Tax to the Excise and Taxation Department.
5. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition and hold that on the basis of the statutory provisions contained in sub-section (gg) of section 4 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 the retired employees of the Federal Government are also exempt from the payment of property tax in respect of the residential houses owned and occupied by them for their residences as in the case of retired Government Servants of the Government of the Punjab.
6. At this stage I have to express that only Haji Shaukat Ali Qureshi writ petitioner has entered the portal of this Constitutional Court even though the other retired Federal Government Employees have also the same type of grievance who are entitled to the same facility of exemption. To enter into litigation has never been liked in our social set up. The pendency of litigation quite in rife is already a source of inconvenience to the public at large. I, therefore, held that all the retired employees of Federal Government to the extent of one residential house owned and occupied for their respective residence are entitled to derive the legal benefit of this Judgment which is held to be binding on the Government of the Punjab and has to be followed thereof. As such a copy of this Judgment shall be sent with his covering letter by the Registrar of Lahore High Court to the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore who shall inform all the concerned subordinates in each District under his administrative control that not only the retired employees of Government^of the Punjab, but also the retired employees of Federal Government are exempt from the payment of property tax in respect of one residential house owned and occupied by them for their respective residences. Any concerned public servant violating this direction shall be doing so at his own risk and he shall be liable to face- the legal consequences.
7. It is, however, clarified that this Judgment- shall be operative with effect from 29-4-1998.
8. No order as to costs.