2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL MAJID YOUSAFANI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division/Ex-Officio Chairman and 4 others
| Citation | 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab and Nadeem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID YOUSAFANI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division/Ex-Officio Chairman and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Faisal Arab and Nadeem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL MAJID YOUSAFANI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division/Ex-Officio Chairman and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mohsin Shahwani for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Rafique Rajourvi for Respondent No.3.
- Haider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent No.4.
- Zubair Hashmi for Respondent No.5.
- The petitioner and respondents Nos.4 and 5 are Additional Collectors in Customs Department in pay scale 19 and are posted in Karachi. All of them applied for government accommodation. The petitioner applied on 5-10-2011, whereas respondents Nos.4 and 5 applied on 25-11-2011 and 14-12-2011 respectively. On the list of the applicants seeking allotment of government accommodation undisputedly the application of the petitioner was prior in time. The petitioner was allotted accommodation of Grade 20-21 in Gulshan-e-lqbal, whereas the respondents were allotted accommodation meant for grade-19. The petitioner is aggrieved by the allotments of the accommodations made in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5, therefore, he filed the present petition. The case of the petitioner is that under rule 6 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, persons applying for government accommodation are to be placed on waiting list. In terms of Rule 7(4) of the said Rules in case a house is not available, then the government servant was to be allotted an accommodation of a class or category lesser than his entitlement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the class of accommodation that is meant for grade-19 was though available but was allotted to respondents Nos.4 and 5, depriving the petitioner his prior right of allotment. He contended that the petitioner does not intend to take accommodation meant for Grade 20-21 officers. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 on the other hand argued that the Rules are not applicable to Customs employees and even otherwise the petitioner has been granted a 1,000 square yard accommodation in Gulshan-e-lqbal, which is superior accommodation, meant for Grade 20-21 officers, the petitioner has no case to object to the allotments made in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5. Upon a question from this Court to the counsel for respondent No.5 that whether his client would be interested in taking the accommodation allotted to the petitioner, to which he replied in the negative. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 also admitted that on seniority list the petitioner is placed at serial No.55, whereas respondents Nos.4 and 5 are listed at serial Nos.93 and 83 respectively. He further argued that Rule 10 provides that in case an accommodation allotted to a government servant is not accepted by him, then his application is to be listed at the bottom of the waiting list and he looses his right of allotment on his original turn.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 6, 7(4) & 10
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Grievance of petitioner was that official accommodation was allocated to respondents who applied subsequent to him
Petitioner had prior right of allotment as his application was prior to that of respondents on waiting list
Petitioner had first right to choose from the class of accommodation to which he was entitled
Refusal of petitioner to accept accommodation that was meant for Grade 20-21 officers was justified for the reason that such class of accommodation was not meant for Grade-19 officers
Rejecting of accommodation meant for Grade 20-21 officer was not in violation of principles laid down in Rule 10 of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, as refusal was not of a class of accommodation to which petitioner was entitled to
Allotments made in favour of respondents were of the same date on which allotment was made in favour of petitioner
First right to get an allotment of Grade-19 accommodation was of petitioner
One of the respondents was given vacant accommodation meant for Grade-19 officers and still there was an accommodation available for Grade-19 officer
High Court directed authorities to allot vacant accommodation in favour of petitioner after cancelling the same made in favour of one of the respondents earlier
Petition was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner and respondents Nos.4 and 5 are Additional Collectors in Customs Department in pay scale 19 and are posted in Karachi. All of them applied for government accommodation. The petitioner applied on 5-10-2011, whereas respondents Nos.4 and 5 applied on 25-11-2011 and 14-12-2011 respectively. On the list of the applicants seeking allotment of government accommodation undisputedly the application of the petitioner was prior in time. The petitioner was allotted accommodation of Grade 20-21 in Gulshan-e-lqbal, whereas the respondents were allotted accommodation meant for grade-19. The petitioner is aggrieved by the allotments of the accommodations made in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5, therefore, he filed the present petition. The case of the petitioner is that under rule 6 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, persons applying for government accommodation are to be placed on waiting list. In terms of Rule 7(4) of the said Rules in case a house is not available, then the government servant was to be allotted an accommodation of a class or category lesser than his entitlement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the class of accommodation that is meant for grade-19 was though available but was allotted to respondents Nos.4 and 5, depriving the petitioner his prior right of allotment. He contended that the petitioner does not intend to take accommodation meant for Grade 20-21 officers. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 on the other hand argued that the Rules are not applicable to Customs employees and even otherwise the petitioner has been granted a 1,000 square yard accommodation in Gulshan-e-lqbal, which is superior accommodation, meant for Grade 20-21 officers, the petitioner has no case to object to the allotments made in favour of respondents Nos.4 and
5. Upon a question from this Court to the counsel for respondent No.5 that whether his client would be interested in taking the accommodation allotted to the petitioner, to which he replied in the negative. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 also admitted that on seniority list the petitioner is placed at serial No.55, whereas respondents Nos.4 and 5 are listed at serial Nos.93 and 83 respectively. He further argued that Rule 10 provides that in case an accommodation allotted to a government servant is not accepted by him, then his application is to be listed at the bottom of the waiting list and he looses his right of allotment on his original turn. Even if we assume that the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 are not applicable, the rule of prudence in such matter is to be applied. Allocations cannot be left solely on the choice of the person who makes but has to be based on some reasonable and logical approach. The petitioner had the prior right of allotment as his application was prior to that of respondents Nos.4 and 5 on the waiting list. He had the first right to choose from the class of accommodation to which he is entitled. His refusal to accept the accommodation that was meant for Grade 20-21 officers was justified for the reason that such class of accommodation is not meant for grade-19 officers. We are, therefore, of the view that rejection of the accommodation meant for Grade 20-21 officer was not in violation of the principles laid down in Rule 10 as the refusal was not of a class of accommodation to which the petitioner was entitled to. Allotments made in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 are of the same date on which the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the first right to get an allotment of grade 19 accommodation was of the petitioner. It has come on record that respondent No.4 has been given one of the vacant accommodations meant for Grade 19 officers. Still there is an accommodation available for Grade 19 officer. We, therefore, direct respondent No.3 to allot the vacant accommodation in favour of the petitioner after cancelling the allotment made in favour of respondent No.5 earlier. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. MH/A-143/K Petition allowed.