Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAFAR IQBAL ANJUM VS Respondent: CHAIRMAN, A.D.B.P.Honorable Justice S.A. MananM.D. Chaudhary
1993 P L C 329
1993 P L C 329
[Lahore High Court]
Before S.A. Manan, J
ZAFAR IQBAL ANJUM and others
versus
CHAIRMAN, A.D.B.P.
W.P. No. 10457 of 1992, decided on 1st November, 1992.
Industrial dispute‑‑‑‑
Posting of Bank employee‑‑‑Bank employees were posted in specific branch of the Bank to take necessary steps for recovery of loans in loan cases investigated/sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure‑‑ Petitioners being employees of the Bank, it was their duty to recover the loan amount as directed by the Bank‑‑‑Such direction was in no way in violation of any law‑‑‑Petitioners were duty bound to comply with the orders of employer and recover the required amount sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure‑‑‑No illegality in the direction of Bank deputing petitioners for said purpose was found.
M.D. Chaudhary for Petitioners.
ORDER
All the twelve petitioners have filed this writ petition against the respondents for a direction that they are not supposed to carry out the orders of the respondent No. 1 dated 18‑8‑1992 by which the petitioners have been transferred and posted as Officers on recovery duty in Tandlianwala branch under Fasalabad Region.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioners sanctioned loan in favour of certain persons and the question came up for the recovery of the said amount from the loanees. For this an order was passed on 18‑8‑1992 that the petitioners should be posted in Tandlianwala to take necessary steps for the recovery of loan in loan cases investigated/sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure.
3. The petitioners have challenged the aforementioned order on the ground that they are not supposed to recover the amount nor they can be transferred and posted as recovery officers.
4. It is admitted by the learned counsel that all the petitioners are the employees of the respondent‑Bank, therefore, it is their duty to recover the loan amount as directed by the respondent‑Bank. It is admitted that several lacs are due from the debtors. The direction of the respondent in the names of petitioners to recover the amount is in‑no way in violation of any law. It is their duty to comply with the orders of the respondent‑Bank and recover the required amount sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure. There is no illegality in the directions of respondent‑Bank deputing the petitioners for this purpose.
5. The writ petition has no merits which is dismissed in limine.
A.A./Z‑48/L Petition dismissed.