2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, J.

Through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner has prayed this Court for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this Writ Petition; i. Thee respondents may kindly be directed to allot the House No. F-35 (New C-35), FG Colony Hassan Garhi, Shami Road, Peshawar in the name of petitioner being entitled for the allotment. ii. The respondent No.2 may kindly be further directed to issue allotment order/letter in the name of the petitioner as such. Any other better relief which has not specifically been prayed for but is more conducive in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted".

2. Brief facts of the case as per contents of the writ petition are that earlier petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 4791-P/2016 before this Court which was dismissed vide consolidated order dated 06.12.2018 in terms:-

2. At the very outset the latter produced a letter dated 18th October, 2018, issued by the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Housing and Works, whereby employees of the Collectorate of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax and Directorate of Central Intelligence and Investigation (Custom and Excise) and Regional Offices located at Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, Peshawar and Rawalpindi, have been declared as employees of the attached Departments of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). In view of the aforesaid letter the instant as well as the connected writ petitions have become infructuous, which are hereby dismissed." It is averred in the petition that after the disposal of the said writ petition, the respondent No.2 is bound to allot accommodation to the petitioner and accordingly petitioner visited the office of respondent for a number of times for allotment of the accommodation but in vain. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, petitioner, having no other adequate and efficacious remedy, has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance.

3. Respondents submitted their comments wherein they have raised several legal and factual objections. It reveals that the petitioner was promoted to BPS-09 on 16.05.2019 and father of the petitioner was allotted Quarter No.C-35 in the Federal Government Hassan Garhi Colony, Peshawar, who stood retired on 02.07.2016 and could, after retirement, retain the same for six months i.e. upto 01.01.2017. It further reveals that petitioner was in BPS-05 at that time and he was entitled for B-type quarter and not C-type quarter which is entitlement of BPS-07 to 10 in view of Rule 5(3) of Accommodation Allocation Rules; 2002 ("AAR").

4. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents available on the file.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant writ petition, Rule 15(2) of the AAR is quoted below:- (2) "An allottee, on his retirement or expiry of contract period shall be entitled to retain the accommodation under his occupation for a period not exceeding six months, on payment of normal rent and this facility will be available to FGS once only. [Provided that the serving spouse or children living with FGS may be allotted the same accommodation, if he is eligible and otherwise entitled for accommodation within six months of the retirement of the FGS. If the accommodation allotted is higher than the entitlement of the spouse or children, he may apply in writing for the allotment of accommodation in accordance with his eligibility, in lieu of the occupied accommodation. The spouse or children shall is not be eligible for allotment of accommodation of higher category." The said rule unequivocally provides that an employee on his retirement or expiry of contract period could retain accommodation not exceeding six months on payment of normal rent and the proviso lays down exception for allotment to serving children or spouse only if he is eligible and otherwise entitled for such accommodation. It also provides that if the allotted accommodation is higher than his entitlement, then he shall not be eligible for the same.

6. The wordings of the said quoted rule is unambiguous to lead us to a final conclusion that the subject Quarter No.C-35 was not the entitlement of the present petitioner who is continuously in its occupation from the last four years after retirement of his father. We have been informed that the petitioner has filed an application for allotment that is still under consideration before the competent authority and that the quarter subject matter of the instant writ petition has been allotted to some other employee. Petitioner has neither challenged the said allotment order nor he has impleaded the said employee in the instant writ petition.

7. In view of the above, we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of the relief as prayed for. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is dismissed along with C.M. with no order as to costs. ZC/185/P Petition dismissed.