The petitioner claims to be widow of late Muhammad Saeed Shah who was working as a Teacher under Federal Government. It is stated that her husband died during service on 1.3.2000. Further that after the death of deceased Muhammad Saeed Shah his son applied for the job and ultimately he was appointed as Naib Qasid on 31.7.2001 and applied for allotment of the official quarter No. 103-1/B in Sector G-7/4, Islamabad. However, that request was turned down. He approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib for a direction to the respondent, Government of Pakistan for issuing him allotment letter for the aforesaid quarter but of no avail. Hence this constitutional petition.
2 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the contents of the petition I am of the view that no interference for the petitioner can possibly be made in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction for the following reasons:--- 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 to 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 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 accommodation 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 t serve the public from their taxes. He' it 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; Lastly, the accommodation built with the money of tax payers 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 SRO 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
3. In case of death of a civil servant his family must part with the possession of the accommodation after expiry of the prescribed limitation and in case a son or daughter of the late employee is in Government service then he/she must stand in queue as rest of the civil servants for allotment on his/her turn. with above observations. Petition dismissed.