' The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the petitioner stood retired on 12-4- 2002 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner submitted an application before the Competent Authority for release of his pension. The respondent did not release the pension of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this contempt petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondent has no lawful authority to withhold the pension of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in The Government of N.-W.F.P. Through the Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan and another (PLD 1973 SC 514). He further urges that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Capital Development Authority v. Subedar Faqir Shah (PLD 2002 SC 243).
2. Farhat Azeem v. Waheed-ur-Rasool and others (PLD 2000 SC 18).
3. Province of Punjab v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bokhari (PLD 1997 SC 351)
4. Ashfaq Hussain alias Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (PLD 1994 SC 879).
' He summed up his arguments that respondent committed contempt of the Honourable Supreme Court by initiating proceedings against the petitioner under section 3 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 read with Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 coupled with letter of the petitioner dated 3-8-2002 addressed to the Secretary Services S&GAD and reply of the respondent dated 7-8-2002.
3. The respondents submitted reply of the petitioner and denied the allegations levelled in the contempt petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. It is better and appropriate to mention the relevant documents on the basis of which the petitioner alleged that respondents committed contempt of the Honourable Supreme Court:--
(i) Order dated 23-7-2002 reveals that the competent authority has appointed Investigating Officer to serve a show-cause notice to the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner addressed a letter to the Secretary Services S&GAD on 3-8-2002 under the subject Leave Encashment Withholding of, Government of the Punjab, Services and General Administration Department, Section (Services-I) No,SI. 2-6-1989 (P-II) Dated 24-7-2002.
(iii) The respondents sent reply to the aforesaid letter of the petitioner in the following terms: "I am directed to refer to your application dated 3rd August, 2002, on the subject cited above and to inform that the matter of leave encashment for 180 days in lieu of LPR is under active consideration with the Government of the Punjab for the present. Outcome will be communicated as and when it takes finality."
6. Mere reading of the aforesaid reply does not constitute that the respondents committed contempt of the Honourable Supreme Court as they did not flout the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is civil servant and in case the respondents passed any order against him then the petitioner has alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Therefore, contempt petition is not maintainable. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bokhari's case supra. The relevant observation is as follows: "This passage does not mean that a void order is always to be struck down regardless of the consequences of such a decision, but that a void order must be struck down provided there is no statute or principle of law which would make it unjust or inequitable to strike down the void order.
This qualification is very important and that is why, for example, a writ may be refused against a void order if this would enable the petitioner to circumvent the provisions of a statute of limitation."
' The case of Farhat Azeem supra relied by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law in view of the following principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cited case: "The Courts and authorities subordinate to the Supreme Court are under legal obligation to follow the law laid down by it, and if they consider that the case-law cited before them is not relevant or applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case they are dealing with, they should distinguish it with reasons showing application of mind by them. This exercise would enable the party citing the case-law to understand as to why the precedents relied upon by it were not followed."
' The case of Capital Development Authority supra is also distinguished on facts and law as the controversy in the cited case is between the same parties. Therefore, is not applicable in the present case as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh versus. The Chairman Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 SC 145).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed on merits as well as being not maintainable. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.