LAHORE - The Lahore High Court yesterday reserved verdict on maintainability of a petition challenging increase in lawmakers’ salaries.

Mukhtar Ahmad, in a petition filed through his counsel AK Dogar, has requested the court to set aside the raise in salaries of the parliamentarians.

Amid growing public concerns weeks before a ‘budget bomb’ in National Assembly, the lawmakers from both sides of the benches came together on May 19 to demand a five-fold increase in their salaries and perks.

As might is right, the House unanimously adopted a motion to increase their salaries five times while considering ‘meager remuneration that does not commensurate with the status of public representatives’.

Sources told The Nation that the lawmakers will withdraw basic salary increased from the current Rs36,000 to Rs200,000.

Moreover, the salaries of National Assembly speaker and the Senate chairman have been proposed to be increased to Rs400,000 while the salaries of deputy speaker and deputy Senate chairman have been set at Rs 350,000.

Besides an increase in IT and phone allowance and monthly utility allowance to the tune of Rs50,000, the parliamentarians sought an increase in their transport allowance from Rs7,000 when on duty per day to Rs50,000 per month.

The petitioner, however, maintains that the salaries of Pakistan’s parliamentarians - not to mention numerous perks and privilege - were already high.

He said in his petition: “The economy of Pakistan is very poor and the foreign debt has reached to billions of dollars, while its citizens do not have basic health facilities and access to quality education.

“Common people are living a miserable life due to worst poverty and unemployment in the country which is facing an economic crisis. In all these grave circumstances, the parliamentarians instead of playing their due role to make this country prosper, are more focused on getting more benefits for themselves,” he added.

The raise in lawmakers’ salaries would be against the principles of Islamic rules of simplicity and tantamount to discrimination of common man, the petitioner maintained, requesting the LHC to set aside the raise.

Justice Shahid Karim heard initial arguments yesterday and reserved the verdict that will be announced later.

PU to reply over MPA degree’s cancellation: The Lahore High Court yesterday sought reply from Punjab University in a petition filed by PML-Q MPA Bilal Asghar Warraich against cancellation of his graduation degree.

Warraich was elected to Punjab Assembly from PP-84, Gojra, on the ticket of PML-Q. The MPA filed the petition and challenged the decision of the Punjab University regarding cancellation of his BA degree. The petitioner argued that the university management cancelled his degree without disclosing any reason and hearing his point of view.

“All the action was done as one-sided by the university,” the lawmaker said while asking the court to set aside the impugned action for being an illegal.

During the hearing, PU’s legal advisor Awais Khalid told the court that the petitioner had forged his academic details in admission form for BA. He stated the university lawfully cancelled the degree of the petitioner on charges of forgery. After hearing both sides, Justice Sheikh sought reply from the university and adjourned hearing for one week.

Meanwhile, Justice Mamoon Rashid Sheikh referred a number of petitions seeking disqualification of MPA Irshad Ahmad Araien of PML-N to Chief Justice to consolidate them. MPA Irshad Ahmad was elected from PP-233, Vehari. Different petitions were filed against him for allegedly having fake graduation degree.

Petition for property dispute allowed: The Lahore High court yesterday allowed revision petition in a pre-emption and set aside the order of a trail court. Raja Abdul Rehman advocate contended on behalf of vendee Jaffar Hussain of Gujranwala district that he purchased agriculture land against Rs 10 million. A suit for possession through pre-emption was filed by Arshad Hussain. He contended that the land was purchased by defendant against sum of Rs 7 million while Rs 10 million amount was shown as an ostensible price to defeat the pre-emption proceedings. The plaintiff mentioned lower price to obtain an advantage as such suit was liable to be dismissed. He relied upon PLD 2015 SC 69 and contended that when a undue advantage was sought, gained on the basis of completely unsubstantiated statement it would disentitle a ‘Shafee’ to claim pre-emption. The court agreed on the law point and allowed the revision petition.