2011 M L D 1475
[Quetta]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Abdul Qadir Mengal, JJ
MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 2 others ---Applicants
Versus
ABDUL SAMAD KHAN and 5 others ---Respondents
Contempt Application No.36 of 2004, decided on 18th May, 2011.
Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003) ---
----S.3---Contempt of court ---Applicants had alleged that respondents had violated the order of
the Supreme Court passed in a civil appeal ---Supreme Court, in its order had made an
observation that notification in question was not in conflict with the Rules 221 and 509 of the
Pakistan Railways Establishment Code with clarification that said Rules did not debar applicants
from obtaining the bene fits---Order of Supreme Court did not reflect any specific direction but it
was of a general nature only specifying the rights of the applicants ---If the authorities which were
paying the dues to the applicants pursuant to the notification had stopped the payment to the
applicants, said non -payment at the best could be considered as denial of the rights of the
applicants; but it did not mean that authorities had violated and disobeyed the order of the
Supreme Court ---Applicants had the right to approach the competent court of law having
jurisdiction in the matter, in case of infringement of their right and could refer the order of the
Supreme Court for guidance and assistance of the court ---Order of the Supreme Court being of a
general nature; and no specifi c direction having been given, it was neither executable nor the
denial of payment to the applicants by the authorities was a violation of the order of the Supreme
Court ---Contempt application being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.
S.A.M. Quadri for Apps cants.
H.Shakil Ahmed for Respondents.
Chaudhary Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel.
ORDER
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J .---Through the instant application the applicants
levelled an allegation that the respondents have violated the order of the hon'ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan, dated 10 -4-1985 passed in Civil Appeals Nos.47 -Q and 48 -Q of 1983, as
such, prayed as under:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to call
upon the Divisional Sup erintendents, Pakistan Railways, Quetta. i.e. the respondents
Nos.3 to 10 and punish them under the law, for their contumacious and wilful
disobedience towards the judgment dated 10 -4-1985, announced by their Lordship,
honourble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the interest of law and justice."
The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, is reproduced
herein below for ready reference: --
"After careful perusal of Rules 221 and 509 aforesaid and the letters in question we have
reached the conclusion that there is no inconsistency between the two. In our view the
afore -mentioned statutory rules deal with a situation with is different from the situation
dealt with in the letter of the Finance Ministry as applied to all categories of railway
servants. In this view of the matter, Rules 221 and 509 of the Railway Establishment
Code do not debar the respondents from obtaining the benefit which the Corral below
have found to be admissible to them.
No ground for interference with the judgment of the courts below, therefore, exists. Both
these appeals are, accordingly dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.
Sd/- Muhammad Afzal Zulla J.
Sd/- Nasirn Hasan Shah J.
Sd/- Abdul Kadir Shaikh, J."
Learned counsel fo r the applicants stated that the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan; is self explanatory and has already been followed by the Railway Authorities uptill
2001. According to him, since they have stopped the payment to the applicants, therefore,
their action amounts to disobedience and violation of the order, as such, are liable to be
proceeded with, under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as
well as under the Contempt of the Court Act. Learned counsel in support of h is arguments,
relied on a judgment in a case titled ICI Pakistan Ltd./Soda Ash Works, Khewra, District
Jhelum v. Zila Council, Jhelum reported in 1994 MLD 235 (Lahore).
The learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondents contested the
application and stated that no direction has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan, therefore, the respondents have not violated the order. According to then, since no
contempt has been committed by the respondents, therefore, the contempt appl ication is not
maintainable and deserves dismissal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is to be
noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its order has made an observation that
the Notification (S ubject -matter of that petition) is not in conflict with the Rules 221 and. 509
of the Pakistan Railway Establishment Code (Vol:IV). It is also clarified that the said Rules
do not debar the respondents (present applicants) from obtaining the benefits. The order does
not reflect any specific direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, rather it is of a
general nature only specifying the rights of the applicants. It is true that the Railway
Authorities were paying the dues pursuant to the Notification but according to the applicants,
the respondents have now stopped the payment to the applicants. In our view the non -
payment, if any, on the part of the Railway Authorities should at the best be considered as
denial of the rights of the applicants, but it does not mean that the respondents have violated
and disobeyed the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, of course, the applicants
have the right to approach the competent Court of law, heaving jurisdiction in the matter, in
case of infringement of their right. The applicants can refer the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan, for the guidance and assistance of the court.
Under Articles 187 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the High
Court has the power to ex ecute the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, subject to
the condition that it must be executable. As discussed above, that the order is of a general
nature and no specific direction has been given, therefore, it is neither executable nor denia l
of payment to the applicants by the respondents is a violation of the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
Thus, in view of above, the contempt application is not maintainable, as such, is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
The application filed in the year, 2004 involved a legal point, therefore, it should have been
decided by this court at the earliest, but due to rush of work, could not be decided. The
applicants should not be penalized for the act of the court or for the wrong advice of their
counsel for availing remedy in a wrong forum. The applicants are therefore, at liberty to
avail proper remedy for redressal of their grievances, if any, in accordance with law,
subject to all just legal exceptions. However, the time consumed during the penden cy of the
application, should not be a hurdle in the way of applicants, in case, they avail their
remedy before a proper forum, within 60 days, starting from 31 -5-2011.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
H.B.T./48/Q Application dismissed .This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.