The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for a direction to respondents to make the payment of long outstanding amount of Rs.2,19,066. It is added that for different amounts, the petitioner moved different applications alongwith bills but could not be cleared on account of the paucity of funds. The applications have been placed on the record as Annexures "A" to "A/5". The petition was admitted to hearing on 29-6-1998. The notices were issued to the respondents.
2. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate-General is present and has filed the written statement. According to which, the factual controversy is admitted. The explanation for non- payment is the non-availability of fund. The respondent has also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of civil suit.:
3. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments and gone through the record. The work was done by the petitioner during the period 1992 to 1997. It is admitted that the claim of the petitioner was examined and scrutinized by a high power committee and after recommendation of the committee special funds have been demanded to clear the liabilities. The 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 justifications moreso in a Islamic Democratic country. If the respondents did not have any funds then they should not have 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 civil 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 were 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.