MUHAMMAD YOUSAF MALIK vs WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This matter concerns a dispute over the entitlement of the petitioner to an enhanced house rent ceiling allowance provided by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner, having hired a house, sought the revised ceiling rate of Rs. 4,920, whereas WAPDA contended that the revised rate was only applicable to fresh hiring agreements. The Service Tribunal initially dismissed the petitioner's appeal but observed that the increased rent should apply upon the expiry of the existing lease deed, specifically from January 31, 1997. Despite this direction, the petitioner alleged that WAPDA failed to implement the payment. Upon review, the Supreme Court addressed the non-compliance by WAPDA. The Court rejected the respondent's justification that the pendency of the petition before the Supreme Court prevented the payment of the enhanced rent. Consequently, the Court directed WAPDA to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 4,920 effective from January 31, 1997, rather than the later date of December 29, 1997, mandating compliance within three weeks under intimation to the Assistant Registrar of the Court.
- Is an employee entitled to an enhanced house rent ceiling upon the expiry of an existing lease agreement?
- Can a government authority withhold payment of enhanced rent benefits due to the pendency of litigation before the Supreme Court?
ORDER
' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The dispute herein relates to grant of house rent ceiling of Rs,4,920. The petitioner hired a house at the rate of Rs,4,100. The rate was revised by WAPDA. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he was entitled to Rs,4,920. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the revised rate was applicable to fresh hiring.
However, the petition was dismissed with the observation that the increase will be applicable after expiry of existing lease deed i,e,. From 31-1-1997.
2. The petitioner states that enhanced rent has not been given to the petitioner w,e,f, 31-1-1997 by WAPDA in terms of the direction of the Tribunal.
3. When faced with this, Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record submits that the enhanced rent could not be given to the petitioner because of the petition filed by the petitioner before this Court.
In the circumstances, we direct WAPDA to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs,4,920 to the petitioner w,e,f, 31-1-1997 instead of 29-12-1997 i,e,. The date on which the payment of such increase in the rent became due within 3 weeks from today under intimation to the Assistant Registrar of this Court.
' With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.