1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Razi Begum being Appeal No. 107(8) of 1984, decided on 23-6-1986, reported in 1980 P L C (C.S.) at page 754, and urged that the appellant is entitled to the house rent allowance even if her husband has been provided residential accommodation by the Quaid-e-Azam University. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the case of Razi Begum decided by this Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the appellant s case. He has made reference to the rules/notifications, referred to in the objections, and contended that the appellant is not Entitled to claim house rent allowance.

4. The question involved in this appeal needs reference to and interpretation of certain rules/orders/notifications. It appears that the benefit of house rent allowance was introduced in the scheme of National Scales of Pay, Allowances and other fringe benefits for non-gazetted civil employees (other than teaching personnel), issued under Finance Division O.M. No. 1(2)-NG-Imp-71, dated 8-3-1972, published in the ESTACODE 1983 edition at pages 416 onwards; and also in the Scheme of National Scales of Pay, Allowances and other fringe benefits for gazetted civil employees (other than teaching personnel) and other than Flight Engineers/Pilots/Flight Inspectors in the Civil Aviation Departments, issued under Office Memorandum No. F. 5(17)-Gar-Imp.I/73, dated the 29th June, 1971 published in the ESTACODE, 1983 edition, at page 403 onwards, subsequently adopted for teaching personnel also. It is provided therein that house rent allowance would be admissible at specified stations at specified rate subject to the condition that the Government accommodation has not been made available to the employee concerned. This provision was amplified/clarified subsequently to meet different situations pointed out for giving effect thereto. This allowance was made admissible also to those employees who were given Government accommodation on the condition of payment of full standard rent vide Finance Division O.M. No. F. 5(17) Gaz. Imp.1/73, dated 12th August, 1974, Certain clarifications were issued under Finance Division O.M. No. F. 5(17) Gaz. Imp.1/73, dated 20th November, 1974, whereby it was inter alia, provided that house rent allowance would be admissible also to Federal Government employees living in private houses at specified stations as are owned by themselves, their wives, relatives and friends; and in case both husband and wife being Government servants are residing together at the same station in a Government residence allowed to one of them, house rent allowance shall not be admissible to the other even if the station is a specified one. It was further clarified under Finance Division O.M. No. F.3(32)-8.13/79-D.225/80, dated the 29th April, 1980 that in case neither of the spouses has been provided with Government residence and both are posted at a specified station, the house rent allowance shall be admissible to both of them. Yet further clarification was issued under Finance Division O.M. No. F.3(32)R.13/79, dated the 11th January, 1981 that in case in which one of the husband/wife is employed by the Government and other by an autonomous body which has adopted the National Pay Scales and Allowances as admissible to Government servants, house rent allowance will be admissible to both of them in terms of O.M. No. F.3(32)-8.13/79-D.252/80, dated 29-4-1980, referred to above, and in case where one of the husband/wife is employed by the Federal Government and the other by an autonomous body having its own rules/regulations, the one employed in the Federal Government will be entitled to house rent allowance, while the other employed in the autonomous body will be governed by the rules made by that body in that regard. Lastly, further clarification has been issued under Office Memorandum No. F.2(2)R.I /88, dated 10th April, 1988 from the Finance Division that house rent allowance would not be admissible in cases where one of the husband/wife is employed by the Federal Government and the other by the autonomous organization, posted at the same station, and one of them has been provided with to accommodation whether by the Federal Government or by the autonomous body and house rent allowance will not be admissible also in cases where both of 'wife are employed in the autonomous organisations posted at the same station and one of them has been provided with accommodation by the autonomous organisation. Of course, the last clarification is subsequent to the riling of the appeal by the appellant. The aforesaid provisions may be summarised as under:-- (i) House rent allowance is admissible at specified stations at specified rates if no Government accommodation is provided to the concerned Government employee; (ii) The allowance is admissible to those Government employees who are given Government accommodation on payment of full standard rent; (iii) The allowance is admissible to the Government employees living in private houses at specified stations as arc owned by themselves, their wives, relations or friends; (iv) Where both husband and wife are Government servants and they are residing together at the same station in a Government residence allotted to one of them, the house rent allowance shall not be admissible to the other; (v) Where both husband and wife arc Government servants and both are posted at a specified station and neither of them has been provided with Government residence, the house rent allowance is admissible to both of them; (vi) Where one of the husband/wife is employed by the Government and the other in an autonomous body which has adopted the National Pay Scales and Allowances as are admissible to the Government servants, and neither of them has been provided with residential accommodation while posted at a specified station, the house rent allowance will be admissible to both of them. (vii) Where one of the husband/wife is employed by the Federal Government and the other by autonomous body having its own rules/regulations, the one employed in the Federal Government will be entitled to house rent allowance, while the other employed in the autonomous body will be governed by the rules made by that body in that regard; (viii)Where one of the husband/wife is employed by the Federal Government and the other by an autonomous organization posted at the same station, and one of them has been provided accommodation by the Government or by the autonomous organisation, no house rent allowance would be admissible; (ix) Where both of the husband/wife are employed in an autonomous organisation posted at the same station and one of them has been provided with the accommodation by the autonomous organisation, no house rent allowance will be admissible.

5. In the instant case, the appellant is a Senior Lady Teacher in the Islamabad Model College and her husband is a Professor at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad. Undisputedly, the appellant's husband is an employee of an autonomous organisation. Admittedly, he has been provided a rented house by the University. As regards the appellant herself, her contention is that Islamabad Model College is a Government institution, whereas the respondent's contention is that the College is an autonomous body run by the Board of Governors and reference has been made to a Resolution called as Islamabad Model Schools/Colleges Resolution, 1985, issued by the Ministry of Education on 13-2-1985, whereunder the Model Schools/Colleges at Islamabad have been placed under the Board of Governors given autonomous status. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Model Educational Institutions at Islamabad were under the administrative control of Board of Governors given status of autonomous body even prior to the Resolution issued in February, 1985. Neither party has furnished any documentary evidence as to what was the status of the Model Educational Institutions at Islamabad prior to the issuance of the Resolution dated 13-2-1985, recorded to above. But it appears from an office order dated 31-1-1984 placed on the record that the appellant and eight other persons were appointed as Senior Teachers in Islamabad Model Institutions. The appellant's appointment was made in the Islamabad School for Girls, F-7/4, Islamabad. The office order was issued from the Ministry of Education. It is mentioned in the letter of appointment that the terms and conditions of service of the appellant were to be regulated under the rules/orders made by the Board and their continuance in service or discharge from service vested in the discretion of the Board. It has not been shown as to what was the nature of the appointment/assignment of the appellant earlier than 1984, although it was stated by the learned counsel for the respondents at the hearing of the appeal that the appellant was in service since late 1976 or early 1977. It appears from the office order dated 31-1-1984 that Ministry of Education was the appointing authority of the teaching personnel of the Model Institutions at Islamabad in the year' 1984 and the Board of Governors, referred to in the appointment order, was not an autonomous body at least in the matters of service and the institutions were placed under the autonomous Board of Governors under the Resolution issued on 13-2-1985. Thus, the appellant was supposed to be employee of the Federal Government in the year 1984. Even thereafter, the employees already serving in the Model Educational Institutions do not seem to have ceased to be employees of the Federal Government. The status of such Teachers was examined in Appeal No. 79(R) of 1986, decided on 9-3-1988, and it was held that they continue to be employees of the Federal Government. Of course, that decision has been appealed against before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 154 of 1988 (Civil Petition No. 143-R of 1988) and the appeal has been admitted to consider, inter alia, whether the Teachers in Islamabad College for Boys, who were parties in the appeal, were `civil servants' within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. However, no interim order was passed. In that case, reference was made also to Ministry of Education/Resolution No. F.14-1/00-Schools, dated 5th April, 1966, as amended from time to time, and Islamabad Model Schools and Colleges (Services) Rules, 1984 while reaching the conclusion that the teachers in those institutions continued to be employees of the Federal Government. Adopting those arguments in conjunction with the reasons stated above: it is held that the appellant is a civil servant. Consequently, the appellant's clam for house rent allowance is to be determined in her capacity as a civil servant and her husband an employee of Quaid-e-Azam University an autonomous body. Her case, to falls in category (viii) outlined above' in paragraph

4. It is an admitted position that her husband has been provided residential accommodation by the University. She is therefore, not entitled to any house rent allowance.

6. In the result, the appellant does not have a case to succeed and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./482/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.