SHER MUHAMMAD TAHIR and 14 others vs JAMEEL KHAN
This matter arises from a contempt petition filed for the non-implementation of a court order dated 13-11-2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 24931 of 1998, directing that the petitioners be treated as permanent employees. The core legal question concerns whether the respondent, representing the Parks and Horticulture Authority (PHA), can withhold compliance and salary payments on the grounds that an intra-court appeal is pending and that funds must first be allocated by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA). The Lahore High Court held that the contentions are misconceived because the original order declaring the petitioners permanent employees of LDA and subsequently PHA has not been suspended by any appellate bench. The Court ruled that the respondent must ensure the payment of salaries and emoluments to the petitioners as permanent employees of PHA within two weeks, while dropping the contempt proceedings given a plausible, though unjustified, basis for delay. The key principle laid down is that the pendency of an appeal without an interim suspension order does not excuse non-compliance with a binding judgment.
- Does the pendency of an intra-court appeal without an interim suspension order justify non-compliance with a judgment?
- Can a statutory authority withhold the payment of salaries to employees declared permanent by a court order on the ground of lack of independent funds?
- When will the court decline to initiate contempt proceedings despite non-compliance with its earlier order?
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.-The respondent is present in person along with his learned counsel. In response to the contempt petition, it has been stated by them that die order, dated 13-11-2000 passed in Writ Petition No,24931 of 1998 has been appealed against by LDA in I.C.A. No,862 of 2000. It is further contended that the petitioners were the employees of LDA at the time they were transferred to the PHA. On this basis, it is submitted that it is, firstly, for LDA to implement the aforesaid order, dated 13-11-2000 and the PHA will only thereafter be obliged to treat the petitioners as permanent employees as per terms of the aforesaid order, dated 13-11-2000. Finally, it is contended that the PHA does not have any funds or contingency of its own to make payment of salaries to the petitioners because salaries are paid out of funds which are allocated to the PHA by LDA.
2. The above contentions are misconceived. It is clear from the order, dated 13-11-2000 that the petitioners have been declared to be permanent employees, firstly, of LDA and, after their transfer to PH A, of the PHA itself. The said order has not been suspended or varied by any interim order passed by the Bench hearing I.C.A. No,862 of 2000. In view of the above circumstances, the respondent shall ensure that payment of salaries and other emoluments to the petitioners shall be made by the PHA on the basis that they are permanent employees of PHA as declared in the concluding paragraph of the order, dated 13-ll-200Cf. This shall be done within two weeks from today. A report showing compliance of this order shall be submitted in Court within 15 days.
3. Keeping in mind that there was some basis for not paying emoluments to the petitioners as permanent employees, although such basis was not justified, contempt proceedings are not being initiated against the respondent. If, however, the payment is not made to the petitioners as per terms of the preceding paragraph, the petitioners shall be entitled to tile a fresh contempt petition against the respondent for violating the terms of this order. This petition is disposed of.