' This revision petition is directed against order dated 22-1-2002 passed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry learned District Judge, Khanewal affirming the order of Civil Judge, Khanewal passed on 4-1-2002 whereby stay application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration that as Railways Guard Grade-II, he is entitled to retain Quarter No,84-B, Railway Colony, Khanewal till the decision of his appeal against removal from service, pending before Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore. By way of consequential relief it was prayed that on the basis of Notice No,89/Q of 2001 dated 26-4-2001, issued by respondent No,5, the respondents be restrained from evicting him from the said quarter till the decision of his said service appeal.
3. Alongwith the suit a stay application was also moved for issuance of an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the said quarter till the final disposal of the civil suit.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that orders of both the Courts below suffer from non-reading and misreading of Notification No,716-W/O/2/Policy dated 10-7-2000 according to which dismissed employees can retain the accommodation on payment of normal rent till the disposal of their service appeal or for a period of six months whichever is less and in case of further retention commercial rent could be charged from them.
5. The petitioner had given undertaking that he is willing to pay commercial rent and that both the Courts did not go through the contents of the aforesaid Notification and had passed the impugned orders without applying judicial mind.
6. The revision is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. I have perused the civil revision alongwith its Annexures and I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. A perusal of aforesaid Notification which is Annexure-B.1, shows that it relates to officers dismissed from service and does not apply to employees of Pakistan Railway, who do not fall in the category of officers. The petitioner was admittedly a Railway Guard in Grade-II and did not fall in the category of officers. The said Notification was, therefore; not applicable to the case of the petitioner and he could not claim retention of quarter on payment of commercial rent on the basis of the said Notification.
9. For the sake of argument if it be assumed that the said Notification applies to the case of the petitioner in that event too it is stated therein that the period of holding over shall be treated as unauthorized and commercial rent will be charged for that period. It is merely a penal provision which does not create legal right in favour of the person holding over, on the basis of which a declaration or injunction could be issued.
10. The civil revision is without any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.