' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for a direction to respondents to make the payment of long outstanding amount of Rs,9,24,154. It is added that for different amounts even the cheques were issued. The same were presented but could not be cleared on account of paucity of funds. The cheques have been placed on the record as Annexures-"A" to "E". The petition was admitted to hearing on 12-11-1998. The notices were issued to the respondents.
2. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate-General is presen alongwith XEN, respondent No,2, who has also filed the written statement According to which the factual controversy is admitted.
The explanation fo non-payment is the non-availability of funds. The respondent has also raised preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has an alternate remedy c Ci'i1 suit.
3. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments and got through the record. The work was done by the petitioner during the period 19c to 1997. It is admitted t that the claim of the petitioner was examined at scrutinized by a high power committee and after recommendation of t committee special funds have been demanded to clear the liabilities. Admitted position is that the amount has not been paid for the' work done by the petitioner. The paucity and non-availability of funds with the respondent is no legal justification, moreso in a Islamic Democratic Country if the respondents did not have any funds then they should not have got the work done from the citizen.
It is a simple and basic rule governing relationship between the citizen, and the State.
4. Now I come to the preliminary objection of respondent to the effect that the petitioner has a remedy of civil suit. It is true that generally suit is the proper remedy for recovery of money but where the amount is admitted and even the amount was paid through cheques which were bounced by the Bank for lack of funds. There is no factual controversy involved. The preliminary objection is mala fide and without merit.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to clear the amount within one month and, in the meanwhile, they are restrained to make any payment or draw any amount except the salary till the amount of the petitioner is paid.