2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MOHAMMAD ALI YOUGVI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN HOUSE ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, SKARDU and another
| Citation | 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Sahib Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Alam, J |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD ALI YOUGVI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN HOUSE ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, SKARDU and another |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Sahib Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MOHAMMAD ALI YOUGVI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN HOUSE ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, SKARDU and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Assistant A.G. for Respondents.
- 3. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General and have gone through the relevant record, available on file. In the case in hand, admitted state of affairs plays very important role in coming to a correct conclusion of the case. The admitted state of affairs is that petitioner has been promoted as Secretary Excise and Taxation Gilgit-Baltistan stationed at Gilgit city and the post of petitioner is not transferable with Deputy Commissioner Skardu. The government quarter that petitioner was occupying before his promotion and posting in the present post is not designated house of Deputy Commissioner Skardu, therefore, can be allotted to any officer of BPS-17 and above at Skardu. So the allotment of suit house in favour of respondent No.2 is not wrong. The question debated before us is that how long petitioner could legally retain the possession of government quarter at Skardu, i.e., suit quarter, after his promotion and posting in the present post. It is also an admitted position that the petition has been filed in this court on 23-07-2013 and more than two years and two months have passed since filing of this petition. Petitioner has sought cancellation of order dated 10-07-2013, whereby, the allotment of suit house in the name of petitioner has been cancelled by the DHAC Skardu, holding that the occupation of the petitioner is illegal, being against the policies of the DHAC Skardu. Through the impugned order, respondent No.1 has cancelled allotments of about 33 government houses, including the suit quarter.
- 4. Petitioner failed to present any rules or policies of the DHAC Skardu, showing that petitioner could retain possession of the government quarter at Skardu indefinitely, even after his promotion and transfer in the present post which is obviously a seat in Gilgit city. We further proposed the learned counsel for petitioner to give us an approximate time within which petitioner has any planning of vacating the suit house but obtained no answer.
- 5. From perusal of file, it is evident that petitioner obtained temporary injunction through order dated 24-07-2013 till 05-08-2013 and the same was extended till 02-09-2013 and thereafter there is no any order of extension of the said temporary injunction. Therefore, we feel that petitioner is using the mere institution of this petition as a ground of prolonging the retention of the suit government quarter. We also feel that respondents are also either not seriously interested in vacation of the suit house or are in connivance with the petitioner as respondents did not take any action for vacation of the suit government quarter although there was no any temporary injunction after 02-09-2013. In our opinion, petitioner has no justification, whatsoever, to continue the retention of government quarter at Skardu after his promotion and posting in the present post at Gilgit city. Learned counsel for petitioner further failed to show that the filing of writ petition is the only remedy available against the impugned order.
Headnotes / Summary
Allotment of official accommodation
Petitioner-employee being Deputy Commissioner at place "X" was allotted a government accommodation who thereafter was promoted and posted at place "Y" as Secretary Excise and Taxation and said accommodation was allotted to the respondent
Post of petitioner-employee was not transferable with Deputy Commissioner at place "X"
Government accommodation which petitioner-employee was occupying before his promotion was not designated house for Deputy Commissioner and same could be allotted to any officer of BPS-17 and above at place "X"
Allotment of official accommodation in favour of respondent was not wrong
Nothing was available on record that petitioner-employee could retain possession of official accommodation at place "X" indefinitely even after his promotion and transfer at place "Y"
Petitioner-employee had no justification to continue the retention of government accommodation at place "X" after his promotion and posting in the present post at place "Y"
Writ petition was based on mala fide which was not competent and was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
This is a writ petition, whereby, petitioner has sought the following remedy:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the impugned cancellation order may kindly be set aside by accepting this writ petition to meet the ends of justice."
2. Petitioner is admittedly a Secretary of Excise and Taxation GB and prior to his promotion in the present post, petitioner worked as Deputy Commissioner District Skardu and in that capacity was allotted a government quarter in Skardu city. After his promotion in the present post, the allotment order of the government quarter at Skardu, in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.1 through impugned order and the suit quarter was allotted to respondent No.2. While passing impugned order, respondent No.1 and other members of the District House Allotment Committee (DHAC) Skardu, hereunder referred as DHAC Skardu, headed by Deputy Commissioner Skardu, felt that occupation of about 33 government quarters including the occupation of suit house was illegal being against the policies of DHAC Skardu. Feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioner moved this writ petition.
3. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General and have gone through the relevant record, available on file. In the case in hand, admitted state of affairs plays very important role in coming to a correct conclusion of the case. The admitted state of affairs is that petitioner has been promoted as Secretary Excise and Taxation Gilgit-Baltistan stationed at Gilgit city and the post of petitioner is not transferable with Deputy Commissioner Skardu. The government quarter that petitioner was occupying before his promotion and posting in the present post is not designated house of Deputy Commissioner Skardu, therefore, can be allotted to any officer of BPS-17 and above at Skardu. So the allotment of suit house in favour of respondent No.2 is not wrong. The question debated before us is that how long petitioner could legally retain the possession of government quarter at Skardu, i.e., suit quarter, after his promotion and posting in the present post. It is also an admitted position that the petition has been filed in this court on 23-07-2013 and more than two years and two months have passed since filing of this petition. Petitioner has sought cancellation of order dated 10-07-2013, whereby, the allotment of suit house in the name of petitioner has been cancelled by the DHAC Skardu, holding that the occupation of the petitioner is illegal, being against the policies of the DHAC Skardu. Through the impugned order, respondent No.1 has cancelled allotments of about 33 government houses, including the suit quarter.
4. Petitioner failed to present any rules or policies of the DHAC Skardu, showing that petitioner could retain possession of the government quarter at Skardu indefinitely, even after his promotion and transfer in the present post which is obviously a seat in Gilgit city. We further proposed the learned counsel for petitioner to give us an approximate time within which petitioner has any planning of vacating the suit house but obtained no answer.
5. From perusal of file, it is evident that petitioner obtained temporary injunction through order dated 24-07-2013 till 05-08-2013 and the same was extended till 02-09-2013 and thereafter there is no any order of extension of the said temporary injunction. Therefore, we feel that petitioner is using the mere institution of this petition as a ground of prolonging the retention of the suit government quarter. We also feel that respondents are also either not seriously interested in vacation of the suit house or are in connivance with the petitioner as respondents did not take any action for vacation of the suit government quarter although there was no any temporary injunction after 02-09-2013. In our opinion, petitioner has no justification, whatsoever, to continue the retention of government quarter at Skardu after his promotion and posting in the present post at Gilgit city. Learned counsel for petitioner further failed to show that the filing of writ petition is the only remedy available against the impugned order.
6. We, therefore, dismiss this petition holding that the same is based on mala fides, on the part of petitioner and is not competent also. Petition dismissed. This file be consigned to record. ZC/142/GB Petition dismissed.