| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1222 2019 SLD 1222 2019 PLD 563 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 227-L of 2010, decision & hearing Dated: 21-03-2019.
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court
Civil Appeal No. 227-L of 2010, decision & hearing Dated: 21-03-2019.
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court
SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
VS
IFTIKHAR AHMED TABASSAM AND OTHERS
Law: Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002
Section: R.15(2),25(4)(b)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 212(3)
(a) Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002--- ----Rr. 15(2) & 25(4)(b)---Unauthorized retention of Government accommodation after retirement---Payment of standard rent with penal charges---Respondent (retired civil servant) contended that he was not liable to pay rent in terms of R.25(4)(b) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 (`the Rules') due to a stay order granted by the Service Tribunal during pendency of his appeal---Held, that as per Rr.15(2) & 25(4)(b) of the Rules, respondent could have retained official accommodation after his retirement only for a period of six months and thereafter he was liable to pay standard rent for the remaining period---Stay order granted by the Service Tribunal was insignificant as appeal was not decision dated: merits and was finally withdrawn by respondent, resulting in the withdrawal of the stay order, as if it never existed---After the withdrawal of the appeal respondent had no justification not to pay the penal rent in accordance with the Rules---Department was entitled to recover standard rent with penal charges from the respondent as per R.25(4)(b) of the Rules---Appeal was allowed accordingly. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 212(3)---Appeal to Supreme Court---Substantial question of law of "public importance"---Meaning---To constitute "public importance," the matter must go substantially beyond the facts of the case; it was not sufficient that a question of law arose in the case, but whether the question of law transcended the facts of the individual case and was substantial enough to have a significant bearing on the public interest---In the context of service laws a substantial question of law of public importance was a question that may arise out of a case but then surpassed the parties, to the case, and had an overarching effect on the public or a community or a class of civil servants---To determine what might constitute a substantial question of law of public importance under Art.212(3) of the Constitution, a good test was to determine whether any decision by the Supreme Court in the matter would have a bearing on the public or on the rights of a community or segment of civil servants and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492