1988 PLC(CS) 196

This revision application is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Karachi (West), dated 24th May, 1986, whereby, the learned District Judge dismissed the Civil Appeal No.288 of 1985 filed by the applicant against the judgment/decree dated 10‑11‑1985, passed by 1st Senior Civil Judge West, Karachi.

2. The brief facts leading to this litigation are that the respondent was admittedly employee of the applicant as Head Master of Anwar‑ul -Uloom Primary School, Liaquatabad Karachi, who retired on 15‑6‑1983 after attaining the age of 60 years. He served the notices upon the applicant who failed to pay him his legal dues, therefore, he filed Civil Suit on 25‑10‑1983, seeking following reliefs;

"(a) To settle the accounts, viz Leave Period's pay, Provident Fund, Pension and other benefits as admissible under rules.

(b) Damages of Rs.5,000 on account of mental worry and shock caused by the defendant.

(c) Interest at 14 per annum on account of with‑holding the dues/accounts of the plaintiff.

(d) Cost of the suit.

(e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. The learned Civil Judge decreed ‑the suit of the respondent for payment of L.P.R. pay, Pension and Gratuity as admissible under rules and also for Rs.5,000 as damages. In appeal the learned District Judge up‑held the judgment and decree of the trial Court but converted the decree for payment of L.P. R. Gratuity and pension into preliminary decree for settlement of accounts. However, the quantum of damages was maintained by the Appellant Court.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants has assailed the judgments of the learned Courts below on the ground that they had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is contended, that all the legal dues have been paid to the respondent and that the delay took place in making of the payment is not unusual so as to award him any damages.

5. Admittedly at the time when the suit was filed the dues were not paid to the respondent. It is also admitted fact, that while the suit was pending before the learned Civil Judge, only Provident Fund had been paid to the respondent, but the Pension, Gratuity and L.P. R. had not been paid. It is also admitted fact, that these dues were paid by the applicant to the respondent on 7‑11‑1985, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned appellate Court. In fact, the learned counsel for the applicant has only challenged the award of damages of Rs.5,000.

6. It is settled law, that in revision application this Court does not re‑appraise the evidence when there are concurrent findings of Courts below on issues of facts. It is admitted fact, that the respondent did not get his dues for nearly 2 years in spite of his best efforts. He had filed the suit on 25‑10‑1983, but still he could not get his dues till 7‑11‑1985 viz. after two years. The respondent does not come from affluent class of Civil Servants and one can, well‑understand the anguish, torture, physical inconvenience and even monetary loss of a person of limited means suffers, when he is deprived of his pension and his savings which he accumulated or earned during the long years of service so that the same may be of use to him after retirement. The rules of service/pension are statutory rules and thus, confer statutory right upon Civil Servants or servants of statutory bodies to get pension, the provident fund etc. after retirement. The applicant is also legally obliged to make the payment of such dues to the retired Civil Servants. Any breach of legal right would give cause of action for damages and can be considered as injuria sine damno. In such injury, it is not even necessary for the aggrieved person to prove any special damages because every such injury imports the damage when a person is hindered from enjoyment of his rights. Both the Courts below have concurrently assessed the damages at Rs.5,000. It is urged by learned counsel for the respondent, that the revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and looking at the circumstances of the instant case this Court should decline to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Reliance is placed on P L D 1986 Karachi 189, wherein, it is held "that the revisional jurisdiction was discretionary and could be declined where such refusal would not result in any grave injustice and hardship to the applicant." In coming to this conclusion, the learned Judge placed reliance upon P L D 1954 Lahore 575 and P L D 1957 Lahore 971.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it cannot be said that the refusal to interfere would amount to any injustice or hardship to the applicant. The amount of damages awarded is not a heavy amount to pay for the applicant which is a big corporate body viz Karachi Municipal Corporation. The applicant is also not able to give any reasonable explanation for hindering the payment of the legal dues to the respondent for 2 years. While declining to interfere, I have also taken into consideration the fact, that the Courts below have not specifically awarded respondent either interest on the legal dues or even costs of the litigation.

8. I, therefore, dismiss this revision application with no order as to costs.

9. The revision application was dismissed by a short order dated 12‑5‑1987, the above are the reasons in support of the said order.

M.Y.H./K‑52/K Petition dismissed.