' RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J.--- Admitted facts of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Naka-Munshi in the year 1959 with the then Town Committee, Ratodero and served the same in different capacities till 20-3-1997 when he was retired as Octroi Inspector. It is not disputed that he has served the respondents 1 to 3 for 37 years and had an unblemished record of service. Present grievance of the petitioner is that as a result of his retirement he is entitled for Rs,1,341 per month as pension and in addition to that, an amount of Rs,2,04,769 as gratuity which was admitted by the respondent No,4, namely Director, Local Fund Audit, Sindh, Karachi. Against the said amount of gratuity a sum of Rs,23,163 has been paid despite the fact that more than 2-1/2 years have passed after retirement of the petitioner but the said amount of gratuity is still outstanding. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:--
(a) That this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to order respondents Nos.1 to 3 to pay regular monthly pension to the petitioner without fail,
(b) That this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to order the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to pay the balance amount of Rs,23,163 (Rupees twenty three thousand one hundred sixty three) of monthly pension to the petitioner,
(c) That this Honorable Court may graciously be pleased to order the respondents Nos. I to 3 to pay remaining balance or Rs,1,72,769 (Rupees one lac seventy-two thousand seven hundred and sixty nine) for commutation/gratuity to the petitioner forthwith.
2. We are fully conscious of the fact that through this Constitutional petition which has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973, the petitioner is seeking recovery of his dues which, one may object that the same cannot be granted as there is an alternate remedy of a suit for recovery of money before a Civil Court. But in the instant case, the situation is quite different. Here, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 are all functionaries of a Local Body duly constituted under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The remaining respondents Nos.4 and 5 are Government of Sindh under whom, as claimed by the petitioner and not denied by the respondents, the Municipal Committee, Ratodero is presently being run, controlled and managed. None of these respondents has even for the sake of objection pleaded availability of alternate remedy or non-maintainability of the present petition. Our attention was also invited to an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us (Muhammad Ashraf Leghari, J) and Mushtaq A. Memon, J. In C.P.No,D-98 of 1999 (Muhammad Afzal Abbasi v. Municipal Corporation, Larkana) where the petitioner was seeking payment of his pension dues. Since the respondent did not deny the claim, that petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973, was granted. In that petition also the respondent has not questioned the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the respondents being State functionaries are required to act according to law by promptly paying the petitioner's dues and for this purpose the petitioner could seek through this Constitutional petition performance of the statutory obligation of the respondents. We are fortified in our view by the decision of Full Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in a case Mahmood Ali Batt v. Inspector-General of Police Punjab Lahore and 10 others PLD 1997 SC 823 at 832 where for the following reasons the Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable: "Before parting with this judgment, we may add that the plea that a High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction vested under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot direct payment of money in any case is without substance, the High court normally does not entertain a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce the civil liability arising out of a breach of contract to pay the amount of money due to the claimant and ordinarily leaves it to the aggrieved party to agitate the question in a civil suit filed for the purpose but an order for payment of money may be made in Constitution petition against State or its functionaries to enforce a statutory obligation. It is usual for the Courts to order refund of the money illegally collected as a duty of a tax....".
3. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents and pursuant to that, respondents Nos.1 to 3 have filed their written objections duly verified on oath. In these objections they have not denied the factum of the service of the petitioner; his retirement and his entitlement to the pension and gratuity. The case of these respondents is that due to some settlement with the petitioner it was mutually agreed that payment of his dues be made in instalments on the ground of shortage of funds. However, petitioner's right to the pension and gratuity has not been specifically denied.
Today, Mr. Solangi has filed a certificate from the United Bank Limited, Ratodero than an amount of Rs,24,163.50, is outstanding balance in the account of Municipal Committee, Ratodero. In view of this bank account, Mr. Solangi pleaded inability on the part of respondents Nos.1 to 3 for prompt payment of the petitioner's dues and prayed that time be granted to them. Mr. G.A. Shahani, has supported the case of petitioner.
4. Instant is the case of great hardship; a person who has served for more than 37 years has not been paid his legal dues and the only ground urged by the respondents is lack of funds. It is the duty of the respondents to utilize and to exploit all its sources to make the due payments to the petitioner. We are sure that we cannot uphold a ground of inability for not paying dues of a pensioner, who has put 37 years of his valuable life in service with the respondents. The alleged acts of the respondents, thus, are violative of Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
In our considered view, it is violation of the right to life.
5. Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution, 1973, if read in conjunction, grant right to life, which, without means of livelihood, become redundant. An old man as of the present petitioner who is living a retired life is deprived of his pension; in other words, it would amount to denial of the right to livelihood. The right to life in reference to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution came up for consideration before a Full Bench of Indian Supreme Court in the case of Consumers Education and Research Center and others v. Union of India and others AIR 1995 SC 922 at 939 where right to life was defined in the following manner: ' The expression ' life' assured in Article 21 of the Constitution does not cannot mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in work place and leisure. In Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545: AIR 1986 SC 180, this Court held that no person can live without the means of living i,e, means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as part of the Constitutional right to life, the easiest wav of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content of meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which make life worth-living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned.
(Emphasis added).
6. Our Supreme Court has also considered the right to live in reference to Articles 9 to 14 of the Constitution, 1973. In the famous public interest case Ms. Shahla Zia and others v. WAPDA PLD 1994 Supreme Court page 693 where several cases from Indian jurisdiction were noted wherein the term 'life' was interpreted in reference to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The term 'life' was also examined in the light of different law dictionaries as well as U.S. Constitutional Law. In that case a group of citizens has challenged the act of the WAPDA in installing a Grid Station in the vicinity of a thickly populated area which, as claimed in that petition was hazardous to life. Importance of life and its place in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following manner:-- ". Thus, apart from the wide meaning given by US Courts, the Indian Supreme Court seems to give a wider meaning which includes the quality of life, adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and cannot be restricted merely to physical existance. The word 'life' in the Constitution has not been used in a limited manner. A wide meaning should be given to enable a man not only to sustain life but to enjoy it. Under our Constitution, Article 14 provides that the dignity of man and subject to law the privacy of home shall be inviolable. The fundamental right to preserve and protect the dignity of man under Article 14 is unparalleled and could be found only in few Constitutions of the world.
The Constitution guarantees dignity of man and also right of 'life' under Article 9 and if both are read together, question will arise whether a person can be said to have dignity of man if his right to life is below bare necessity like without proper food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, clean atmosphere and unpolluted environment...."
' In the aforesaid circumstances, the above petition is accepted as the petitioner has successfully established a case of violation of his right to life at the hands of the respondents, and therefore, the respondents are directed to repay the amount of gratuity within a period of two months and to continue paying the pension to the petitioner without default and as per rules.