' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---The petitioner, namely, Mrs. Rukhsana Yasmin Chaudhry wife of Dr. Shafqat Hussain Chaudhry, who is presently posted as Assistant Professor, Government Islamia College for Women Cooper Road, Lahore, has filed this Constitutional petition, wherein it has been prayed that action of the respondents, whereby they have called upon the petitioner to vacate the Government Accommodation (House No,B-18/GOR-III Lahore) be declared to be illegal and that she be allowed to retain the said house till her retirement. In the alternative it has been prayed that if she is not allowed to retain house No,B-18/GOR-III, then the respondents be directed to allot to her house No,37-C/GOR-III, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner, who as already stated is a Government servant, had been allotted House No,VF-16 & 17/GOR-III, Lahore in the year 1988, when she was a Lecturer (BS-17); on 3-1-1989, House No,B-18/GOR-III had been allotted to her husband Dr. Shafqat Hussain Chaudhry, who at the relevant time was working as a Professor in the Government College, Lahore; that consequent upon allotment of House No,B-18/GOR-III to her husband, the petitioner vacated House No,VF-17 & 17/GOR-III and shifted to the house allotted to her husband; in February, 2003, she moved an application to the authorities concerned requesting allotment of House No,B-18/GOR-III in her own name as her husband was due to retire on 31-12- 2003, however, the Estate Officer vide letter dated 28-4-2003 informed her that the competent authority had not acceded to her request; she again filed a representation to the Additional Chief Secretary (respondent No,1) in November, 2003 containing the same prayer i.e, that House No,B- 18/GOR-III be allotted to her in her own name; the said representation also met the same fate and the Estate Officer vide memo. Dated 10-1-2004 informed her that her request had been considered and regretted being contrary to Allotment Policy/Rules; on 26-2-2004, the petitioner got promoted as Assistant Professor (BS-18); on 23-6-2004, the competent authority on an application moved by the petitioner's husband allowed him to retain the house in question till 31-7-2005 on payment of normal rent on extreme compassionate grounds; that the petitioner yet again made a representation for allotment of House No,B18/GOR-III in her own name, whereupon the Chief Minister Punjab vide memo. Dated 11-2-2005 asked the Additional Chief Secretary to prepare a summary on the issue and that meanwhile the applicant may not be dispossessed. According to the petitioner, she is still in possession of the house and summary desired by the Chief Minister Punjab vide his letter dated 11-2-2005 has still not been submitted to him.
3. In support of his petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as co-allottee/tenant of House No,B-18/GOR-III is against facts and provisions of law; that the House Rent Allowance is being deducted from the salary of the petitioner, therefore, she is to be treated as a co- . Tenant/licensee along with her husband Dr. Shafqat Hussain Chaudhry and that after the retirement of her husband, the respondents cannot ask the petitioner to vacate the said premises, she being a co-tenant/licensee; that the petitioner's last representation has not been decided so far and till such time that the same is decided, no adverse action can be taken against 'her; that the contemplated action of the respondents is discriminatory in nature and violates the mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973, inasmuch as certain similarly placed persons have been treated differently; that the Government policy on the basis of which the petitioner's representation had been turned down more than twice does not have the force of law; that since the petitioner had all along been treated as a cotenant/licensee, therefore, .Under the principle of estoppel and waiver the respondents cannot call upon the petitioner to vacate the house; that the petitioner even otherwise is entitled to the allotment of the said accommodation under the Spouses Scheme.
4. I had sought report and parawise comments from the respondents on 22-7-2005 and meanwhile, I had issued an injunctive order for the maintenance of status quo. During the pendency of this petition, C.M. No,3731 of 2005 had been made under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. By one Mrs. Humera Shakeel, allottee of house No,37-C GORIII, Lahore and claimed to be a necessary party, inasmuch as according to her House No,37-C had been allotted to her in pursuance of the order dated 19-3-2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Cr1. Org No,70 of 2002 in C.P.
No,2434-L of 2002. According to the said applicant the present occupant of House No,37-C, namely, Riaz Ahmad Tahir had been allotted House No,B-18/GOR-III, which is presently being occupied by the petitioner and that House No,37-C, which has been allotted to the applicant could only be occupied by her if the present petitioner vacates the premises in her possession so as to enable Riaz Ahmad Tahir, new allottee, to occupy the same. It was contended in the C.M. That the petitioner had concealed the proceedings and final order passed by the Hon'ble apex Court and submitted that the continuation of status quo in favour of the petitioner would indirectly thwart and frustrate the order of the Hon'ble apex Court.
' On 27-9-2005, I issued notice to the writ petitioner on the said C.M. And adjourned the case to 5- 10-2005, on which date the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in attendance and the case was adjourned to 10-10-2005. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to acquaint himself with the contents of the C.M. As well as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had been appended therewith. Resultantly, the case had been adjourned to 13- 10-2005 i.e,, today.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by the Estate Officer. From the record, it has been noticed that the petitioner and her husband had been allowed to retain the house in question on various applications made by them from time to time. The order of the Chief Minister Punjab on summary dated 11-6-2004 clearly shows that the said summary had been forwarded on the application of the petitioner herself and it was on the basis of her application that the Chief Minister Punjab had approved extension for one year for retention of the house in question vide order dated 16-6-2004.
It had been mentioned in the said order that the said extension had been allowed "on extremely compassionate grounds". After availing the said retention period, when the petitioner realized that the time for vacating the house was fast approaching, she made another application on which the order appended herewith as Annex `K.' dated 11-2-2005 had been passed, whereby as already stated elsewhere the Chief Minister Punjab had desired that a summary be forwarded. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is co-allottee/licensee for the reason that deduction of House Rent Allowance from her salary is being effected is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as the house rent of both the spouses is deducted whenever any one of them is allotted a Government accommodation and the mere fact of deduction does not confer any special privilege. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant Mrs. Humera Shakeel that the continuation of any injunctive order in favour of the writ petitioner now at this stage would amount to create hurdles in the way of the order dated 19-3-2003 passed inCr. Org.
No,70 of 2002 in C.P. No,2434-L of 2002 by the Hon'ble apex Court, inasmuch as the said order can be facilitated only if the premises in possession of the petitioner are vacated and are handed-over to its allottee Riaz Ahmad Tahir, in which case the premises occupied by Riaz Ahmad Tahir would be handed over to Mrs. Humera Shakeel, the applicant. Needless to add that Article 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 mandates all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Since the petitioner has benefited from the extension orders passed in her favour by the Chief Minister Punjab on her own application, therefore, it is too late for her in the day now to turn around and start finding faults with the said order. The equitable considerati ms obviously in this case are not in favour of the petitioner.
6. Resultantly, there being no merit in this petition, the injunctive order dated 22-7-2005, is hereby recalled and the writ petition is IA dismissed in limine.
7. Before parting with this order, I would like to add that the learned counsel for the applicant has produced an extract from the register maintained in Form P.T.I. Showing that the petitioner's husband Dr. Shafqat Hussain Chaudhry owns a house in Jauhar Town, Lahore. When confronted with this situation, Dr. Shafqat Hussain Chaudhry, who was present in the Court, did not deny this assertion and stated that the said, house is presently vacant but needs some finishing work to become habitable. The aforesaid extract has been taken on the file of this case.