1997 PLP 605 (SCMR)

Amin‑ur‑Rahman Khan and another v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Works, Works Division and another 1989 SCMR 1948 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑‑Civil servant‑‑‑Cancellation of allotted house‑‑‑High Court dismissed civil servant's Constitutional petition for alleged lack of jurisdiction‑‑ Validity ‑‑‑Civil servant had been allotted another quarter which fact civil servant had acknowledged by occupation report of specified date‑‑‑Civil servant had further acknowledged such fact through his letter addressed to Estate Officer‑‑ Civil servant while admitting contents of said document stated that he was made to sign those documents and had not yet occupied the quarter‑‑‑If civil servant had not yet occupied the allotted quarter he could do so now‑‑‑Appeal, however, had lost its significance and was dismissed for having become infructuous. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th May, 1995. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 29‑11‑1993 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.475 of 1990 filed by the appellant against the cancellation of allotment of Quarter No.259‑E, G‑6/2, Islamabad, which was allotted to him as a civil servant, dismissing the same on the ground that "he is a civil servant and is aggrieved of alleged violation of terms and conditions of service, therefore, his remedy is before the relevant Service Tribunal . Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Amin‑ur‑Rahman Khan and another v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Works, Works Division and another (1989 SCMR 1948) (in which it has been held that the allotment of quarter/houses by tile Government to civil servants is not a term of service), the impugned judgment of the High Court was in consonance with law. 2 It appears that after the grant of the above leave, the appellant has been allotted Quarter No.252‑E, G‑6/2, Islamabad, which fact the appellant acknowledges by the occupation report dated 1‑2‑1995. He further acknowledges the above fact through his letter dated 6‑3‑1995 addressed to the Estate Officer requesting him for permission to allow the previous allottee without any monetary gain to share the above newly allotted quarter for the next 3/4 months. The photostat copies of the above documents have been produced by the department, the original of which have been shown in the Court.

3. The appellant admitted the above documents but stated that he was made to sign the above certificate and the aforesaid letter. According to him, he has not yet occupied the newly allotted quarter.

4. It will suffice to observe that if the appellant has not occupied the above newly allotted quarter, he may do so now. However, the present appeal has lost its significance. It is, therefore, dismissed as having infructuouts. A.A./S‑981/S Appeal dismissed.