2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant impugns the order dated 17-8-2010, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No.3623 of 2010, instituted by the present appellant. It was averred that the present appellant was serving as Senior Medical Officer (BPS-18) in Railways Hospital, Rawalpindi, and was allotted Bunglow No.625, Westridge, Railways Hospital Road, Rawalpindi, as an official accommodation, which was previously occupied by respondent No.4, The allotment was, however, cancelled. The Bunglow in question was allotted in favour of the respondent No.3, a Medical Officer on deputation, in BPS-17, vide order dated 30-5-2010, passed by respondent No.2.

2. It is argued that the respondent No.4 having retired in the year 2009, was no more entitled to retain the same beyond the period of six months that as provided under Clause No.4 of the Policy for allotment of Railways' Officers, 2002, the name of every officer/applicant for residential accommodation has to be entered in the priority register and within the same category the allotment is to be made on the first come first serve basis. Since the appellant was the first applicant, therefore, she was entitled to the allotment. It is further argued that as per the Office Letter dated 21-10-2004, issued by the General Manager, Pakistan Railways, the allotment orders once issued are not be repeated and are not be cancelled. It is further argued that the appellant is a permanent employee whereas, respondent No.3 is on deputation and as such the latter is not entitled to allotment of the residence in question.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4. There is no doubt that after passing of a period of six months, respondent No.4 is only a squatter and is not entitled to the retention of the Bunglow in question. The appellant was allowed the official residence in question earlier in time. The respondent authority, if intended the cancellation of any order passed by it, had to assign the reasons for its vacation. No such reason has been assigned.

5. Respondent No.3 is simply a Medical Officer, whereas, the appellant is a specialized Medical Officer in BPS-18. Even if, the allotment of the official residence falls within the domain of the department, the same has to be done in accordance with the rules framed by itself. The making of rules is not a cosmetic activity. It is a delicate, well meditated task of casting shackles by an authority to control its own unfettered powers. Any rules once made have to be adhered to very strictly and religiously. The respondents while exercising their authority have to respect the law and shall not be driven by their personal likings or dislikings.

6. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is accepted. The order dated 17-8-2010 passed by the learned venerable Single Judge of this Court is set aside. The order dated 30-5-2010, passed by respondent No.2 is set at naught. The order dated 9-9-2009, passed on behalf of respondent No.2 stands restored. M.H./A-187/L Appeal allowed.