' Through this single order I intend to dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 3400,3401, 3402, 3404, 3405 and 3406 of 2004.
2. In these Constitutional petitions following common prayer has been made.
"In view of what has been stated above, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and Notice dated 2-9-2002 (dated 25-1-2004 in W.P. No. 3402 of 2004 and dated 10-6-2004 in W.P. No.3404 of 2004) issued by the respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside, and declared illegal. And the respondents may kindly be directed to act according to the amended rule 20 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules 2002 for allotment of Quarter in the interest of Justice.
' Meanwhile the operation of the notice dated 2-9-2004 (dated 25-1-2004 in W.P. No.3402 of 2004 and dated 10-6-2004 in W.P. No.3404 of 2004) may kindly be suspended and the respondents may kindly be directed to restore the electricity and connection in the Quarter of the petitioner."
2. The petitioners are employees of the respondent-Company. They are related to ex-employees who, while serving the respondent-Company were allotted residential accommodation. These relations have-now either retired or have expired. It is stated that after their death or retirement from service the petitioners who were already living with them as family members applied for allotment of the residential accommodation in their favour which was either refused or was not even responded to. Therefore, the prayer has been made in the above terms.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the contents of the petition. I am of the view that no interference for the petitioners can possibly be made in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. In a recent case W.P. No.41 of 2003 re. Mst. Altaf Bibi v. Government of Pakistan and others recorded on 26-5-2004 in an identical situation a similar prayer was refused by me. The petitioner in that case was son of a late Federal Government Employee serving in the same department who applied for allotment of the quarter occupied by him after the death of his father. The prayer made was refused for the following reasons which are equally applicable to the facts in hand: ' Firstly, the petitioner, after the death of his father is continuously living as an unauthorized occupant. This Court will never interfere for a person who is either a trespasser or an unauthorized occupant of Government accommodation.
' Secondly, I am not aware of any Constitutional guarantee which forces a Government to provide residential accommodation to its employees.
' Thirdly, an interference by this Court in favour of an unauthorized person or the one who is merely holding over after the right of his predecessor had ceased tp exist will convert an official residence into an estate forming part of the assets of a deceased. Once a civil/Government servant in occupation of a Government accommodation dies, after the period prescribed under rules his family severs all connections with that house. The occupation thereafter of Government accommodation by the family of a deceased civil servant is usurpation of the rights of other civil/Government servants. It has been seen and the case in hand is one of such unfortunate instances, that the families of deceased employees keep on occupying accommodations without paying rent for years altogether till the time a child of late employee manages to get an odd employment with any Government department. Sympathy and compassion are the words used as screen by those who ought to have enforced the vacation of the premises. These gentlemen, authorities in the estate office, I am sure, would not let the family of their personal tenants even hours after his death if the term of the tenancy was to expire with his death. All virtues, grace, compassion, sobriety and courtesy are shown only in respect of Government accommodation.
Something has seriously gone wrong in the respondent Estate Office, Islamabad.
' Fourthly, The petitioner has absolutely no right, title or interest in the accommodation which his father enjoyed as a civil/Government servant and which on his death automatically went back to the pool of the Estate Office to be allotted to another civil/Government servant in accordance with their entitlement. The allotment of Government accommodation to the children of deceased civil servants for whatever reason has given rise to the creation of a new class of hereditary rights which were hitherto unknown to a jurisprudence. Also it has become a source of corruption in the concerned offices. To it can be added that sense of deprivation amongst the entitled civil servants to have Government accommodation at their turn. The allotment of a Government quarter to the family of a deceased civil servant on whatever grounds and as a matter of course needs to be disapproved with all force. To be considerate towards a Government servant is a legacy of British Raj when loyalty to realm was expected of every person serving. The payment of salary or compensation to the servant was rather incidental. Now a civil or Government servant opts to serve the public from their taxes. He is governed by a set of laws, rules and regulations which determine his terms and conditions of service. No one is forced to serve if such terms and conditions are not acceptable to him. Unfortunately though the Kings have vanished in the dust of time, the readers of their stories still cherish them by trying to act like them. One of such desires appears to have been translated in rules providing for a quota for the sons/children of a particular class of servants dead or serving. That rule and all other such rules provide for a sham benevolence are negation of the rights of others equally qualified for the job. And, the accommodation built with the money of taxpayers is not a charity to be distributed by either an officer of the Government or holder of a political office on the basis of his personal notions of piety and compassion. A compassion shown is legitimate only when it relates to one's personal property and secondly when it does not result in cruelty and injustice to another. For these reasons I will hold rule 15 (Retention of Accommodation in case of death of allottee) of the rules for the allotment of residential accommodation to the Federal servants as notified on 30-10-2002 vide S.R.O. 749(1)/ 2002 to be ultra vires of the powers of the President to make rules under section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with Fundamental Rules 45 and 45-A.
4. On the death of a civil servant or a juristic person his family must part with the Government accommodation after expiry of the prescribed limitation. In case the wife, son or daughter of the.
Late employee is in Government service then he or she must stand in the queue as rest of the employees/civil servants for allotment of accommodation on his or her turn. Speaking for myself I am of the view that the fixation of a quota in civil service or other statutory or autonomous bodies for the sons, daughters or family members of the employees has done more harm than good to the system as well as the organizations. Not only that it promotes nepotism but it invariably destroys the discipline of the organization or a department. To quota an example, North-Western Railways was the best department at the time of partition but finally it is ending up as a continuous burden on the national exchequer. Most disastrous reason being fixation of a high quota for the sons and daughters of the employees and then allotment of official residences by the department from one generation to the other.
5. Be that as it may, an employee of an organization or a civil servant in occupation of the residential premises provided by the Company or the Government is mere a licensee who has no vested right in that premises after the allottee had retired, expired or had been guilty of violation of any term of the licence. Allowing an employee or a civil servant to remain in official accommodation after death or retirement of the allottee or even on violation of the term of licence, as noted above, has resulted in creating a new class of hereditary rights which were hitherto unknown to our jurisprudence. It needs to be disapproved.
6. Accordingly, for the reasons earlier recorded by me in W.P. No.41 of 2003 re. Mst. Altaf Bibi v.
Government of Pakistan and others and those added above these petitions shall be dismissed in limine.
7. A copy of this order shall be conveyed to both respondents within a fortnight.