Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN VS Respondent: MANZOOR HUSSAIN
1969 S C M R 692
1969 S C M R 692
Present : Muhammad Munir, C. J. A. R. Cornelius, Amiruddin Ahmad and S. A. Rahman, JJ
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN‑Appellant
versus
MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1959, decided on 9th March 1960.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, dated the 16th April 1958, in. Writ Petition No. 81 of 1957).
Government servant---
-‑Arrears of salary payment of‑Bounty of State‑Cannot form subject‑matter of any legal action in civil Courts nor can furnish foundation for invoking writ jurisdiction‑ Bounty once exercised in favour of Government servant‑Supreme Court refused to interfere‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.
State of Pakistan v. Mirajuddin P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 147 ref.
Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Iftikharuddin Ahmad Khan, Attorney for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 9th March 1960.
JUDGMENT
S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The question raised in this appeal, by special leave, on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, through the General Manager, N. W. R., Lahore, the High Court could order payment of a salary, servant, in the exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction. The respondent Manzoor Hussain, who was a railway servant, was successful in obtaining such a wrist from the High Court of West Pakistan.
It has been authoritatively ruled by this Court in the State of Pakistan v. Mirajuddin (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 147.) that the claim of a State servant for salary is on the bounty of the State and cannot form the subject of any legal action in Civil Courts. Such a claim, therefore, furnishes no foundation for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a High Court. In the present case, we are informed that the bounty of the State has already been exercised in favour of the respondent in deference to the order passed by the High Court and the respondent has received all the arrears of his salary which he claimed. No ground has been taken in the petition for special leave which could make out a case for restitution of the bounty of the State, of which the respondent is the recipient. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for interference. No order of stay was prayed for in the present case during the pendency of the appeal.
We formally dismiss the appeal but leave the parties to bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.