' The petitioner, a voter of Halqa U.C. No,95 Al-Hamra Lahore, seeks a quo warranto to be issued to respondent No,4. As per information laid down by the petitioner in this writ petition respondent No,4 was employed with National Bank of Pakistan (Special Assets Management Wing Regional Headquarters) Lahore, and was retired from the bank w,e,f, 14-5-2001. Copy of the retirement office order, dated 14-5-2001, certified by the said bank was filed as Annexure D to the writ petition. The said respondent No,4 filed nomination papers (Annex-B) on 5-6-2001, which were accepted on 9- 6-2001 by respondent No,2 and pursuant to the said acceptance of nomination papers he contested election to a seat reserved for peasant/worker in the said Union Council and was declared returned on 6-7-2001 vide statement Annexure C.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued to respondent No, 4 he, put in appearance on 1-2-2002 and sought adjournment to enable him to engage a learned counsel. The adjournment was granted and case was adjourned. He was also called upon to bring along his letter of retirement from the service of the National Bank of Pakistan.
3. Today respondent No,4 appeared along with his learned counsel. It was conceded that respondent No,4 was in the service of the said National Bank of Pakistan and had retired w,e,f, 14-5- 2001 afternoon.
4. In the said admitted factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that respondent No,4 is not qualified to contest said election or to hold said elective office or membership of the said Local Government in view of the provisions of section 14(g) of P.L.G.E.O. Of 2000. Learned counsel for respondent No,4 on the other hand, states that no doubt his client had been in service of the said Bank which is a statutory body controlled by the Federal Government and that 6 months has not lapsed since his retirement when he filed nomination papers and contested election, yet before the retirement became effective his client had obtained leave and remained on leave for a period in excess of 6 months before he retired. The precise contention is that it should be deemed that respondent No,4 retired when he was sent on leave before retirement.
5. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel. In view of the said admitted state of affairs there is no doubt in my mind that respondent No,4 was disqualified from contesting said election as also from holding said Office, In a judgment in almost a similar case of Sabiruddin. v. Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti and 2 others (PLD 1993 SC .412). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while interpreting section 21(i)(f) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 read with Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the country, which provisions are in para meteria with those of section 14(g) of P.L.G.E.O of 2000, held the employee of United Bank Ltd. To be disqualified from being candidate and being member of the Zila Council. It may be also noted here that civil appeal decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of judgment of this Court dismissing a writ petition seeking issuance of quo Ivarranto in the matter. The appeal was allowed.
6. In the present case admittedly respondent No,4 had contested the election when period of 6 months prescribed in the said section 14(g) had not lapsed. As to the said contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,4, I am not inclined to agree with learned counsel that a person on leave is not in service. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is declared that respondent No,4 contested the election and is holding office of Member of U.C. 95 Al-Hamra Lahore, without lawful authority and is liable to be removed from the office.
' A copy of this judgment immediately be remitted to learned Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and learner Returning Officer, Lahore.