' CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 12-12- 2007 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeal filed by respondent No,6 was partially allowed and case was remanded to the authority.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that Appeal No,200(R)(C.S.) of 2006 was filed in the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad by respondent No,6 Dr. Musharraf Ali Khan, whereby allotment of House No,8 of category "F" situated in P.I.M.S. Colony, to respondent No,4 Dr. Matloob Azam, vide order, dated 23- 6-2005 was challenged. In addition, order dated 11-2-2006, whereby category "F" house were allotted to officers, other than the said respondent, was also challenged. Case of respondent No,6 before the F.S.T. Was that he had joined Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences on 1-5-1986 and was allotted an "E" type - house in the year 1988 in. Which he was still residing, despite his promotion in BS-18 on 28-1-2004. It would be pertinent to mention here, that the above mentioned house was allotted to respondent No,4 Dr. Matloob Azam, who was in BS-19, vide allotment order, dated 23-6- 2005 on the recommendations of respondent No,1 i,e, the Chairman, Committee for Allotment of Official Residential Accommodation. Respondent No,6, Dr. Musharraf. Ali Khan, submitted a departmental representation dated 27-7-2005 to respondent No,
1. Since respondent No,1 had also allotted a number of vacant houses to various employees of P.I.M.S. Vide letter, dated 11-2-2006 which did not contain the name of the said respondent No,6, therefore, he i,e, the respondent No,6 took it as implied denial and approached the Federal Service Tribunal. Wring pendency of the said appeal before the F.S.T., present petitioner Ch. Muhammad Aslam and respondent No,5 Dr. Muhammad Irshad submitted applications to join the proceedings which were allowed, hence they were also impleaded as- respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties including the present petitioner, the Tribunal, vide its judgment, dated 1212-2007, while relying on the case of Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Jamshoro v. Dr. Muhammad Moazzam Baloch and another 2006 PLC (C.S.) 25, without going into merits of the case, observed as under:-- "Pursuant to the above, we do not find it necessary to look into the merits of this case and direct the respondents to process the departmental representation, dated 27-7-2005 of the appellant in accordance with the laid down procedure and forward it to the Appellate Authority within 15 days of receipt of this judgment for an appropriate order. Pending decision by the Appellate Authority, one "F" type house which has been kept vacant vide our order, dated 1-11-2006 in M.P. No,503 of 2007 shall not be allotted to any other official. In case the appellant feels aggrieved by the appellate order he would be at liberty to seek remedy from this Tribunal, if so advised. The appeal is disposed of in these terms."
' Being aggrieved of the above order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant petition.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner having been appointed in BS-18 on 17-3-1993 was senior most applicant in his grade for allotment of "F" type accommodation in residential colony of P.I.M.S. And respondents Nos.5 and 6 were junior to him under the mandate of Federal Accommodation Allocation Rules, 1993 as well as Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, therefore, the petitioner had a preferential right for allotment of "F" type accommodation. It is further his case that the respondent No,4 was though in Grade-19 yet, since he had applied for allotment later than the petitioner, therefore, allotment in his favour too, could not have been made ahead of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that since he was allotted House No,F-16, which was a separate house, therefore, he could not have been deprived to enjoy its possession. In order to supplement his argument the learned counsel clarified that respondent No,4 Dr. Matloob Azam was allotted House No,8, whereas House No,F-16 was allotted to the petitioner, hence, allotment in favour of respondent No,4 was not a hurdle, in the transfer of possession of the said house to the petitioner. It is further his grievance that delivery of possession of House No,F-16 was unjustifiably denied to the petitioner by the Estate Office on the pretext that an injunction was granted by the Federal Service Tribunal in the case filed by the respondent No,6. He maintained that the Tribunal was under obligation to decide the case of the parties on merits itself instead of remanding the same to the appellate authority.
4. Respondents Nos.5 and 6, while controverting the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since subsequent to introduction of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, power to allot houses was vesting in the Committee constituted for the purpose, thereof, the case was rightly remanded by the Federal Service Tribunal for reconsideration.
5. Raja Muhammad Irshad, learned Deputy Attorney-General, while appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2, though denied the claim of the petitioner to the extent that he was senior most in Grade-18, yet admitted that the petitioner had a claim towards allotment of an "F" type house as per his entitlement. He, however, submitted that respondent No,4 Dr. Matloob Azam being in Grade- 19 too, was, as per his choice, entitled for allotment of an "F" type house, as no "G" category house, as per his entitlement, was available in the P.I.M.S. Colony. He further added that prior to introduction of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 though allotment of Government owned accommodations was being made by the Estate Department, yet, subsequent to promulgation of "the Rules, 2002", it was vesting in the departmental Allotment Committee.
6. It would be pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioner had also approached this Court vide C.P.L.A. No,264 of 2007, wherein the following order was passed:- "After arguing the petition at quite some length on merits, learned counsel would not press this petition, as the petitioner would resort to Estate Office, Federal Estate Office for the redress of his grievance under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Petitioner would be at liberty to agitate his right before the forum that may be available to him under the law."
' Subsequent to the above order, according to the petitioner, he had submitted an application to the Estate Officer and another to the Supervisory Authority, namely, the Senior Joint Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad, for allotment of "F" type house, in consequence, whereof allotment of House No,16 was approved in his favour and conveyed for implementation to the Estate Officer, by the Ministry of Housing and Works vide its letter No,16-F-P.I.M.S.-EI dated 21-7-2007.
The said letter reads as under:-- "I am directed to refer to the subject noted above and to convey that the competent authority has approved the allotment from the pool of P.I.M.S. Of House No,F-16, P.I.M.S. Colony, Islamabad, to Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Deputy Director (Engg.) (BS-18), P.I.M.S., Islamabad subject to vacation basis.
' The Estate Officer shall take further necessary action in the matter after completing all codal formalities under intimation to the Ministry."
' It is grievance of the petitioner that despite submission of report of vacant possession and clearance by the Estate Officer, delivery of possession of the said house, to him, was delayed on the ground that an injunction was issued by the Federal Service Tribunal. Record reveals that two separate houses i,e, bearing Nos.16 and 18 were allotted to the petitioner as well as respondent No,4 Dr. Matloob Azam, respectively, hence, apparently there was no clash of interest but since the applicants were eager to get possession of the houses, therefore, they entered into litigation. Be that as it may, in order to properly appreciate the proposition in hand, it would be advantageous to have a glance at the registration and allotment policy as prescribed by Rules 6 and 7 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, which read as under:--- "6. Maintenance of General Waiting Lists.--- (1) The applications for allotment of Government accommodation shall be received on the application form specified in Annexure "B". This form shall be forwarded to Estate Office under covering note by the department or Ministry of the applicant, certifying that the particulars given in the form are correct.
(2) The application for accommodation as and when received from an applicant, shall be acknowledged by the Estate Office by issuing a registration card in the form set out in Annexure "C".
(3) The Estate Office shall maintain waiting list of F.G.Ss. Who have applied for Government accommodation on the prescribed form. The copies of the G.W.L. Shall be provided to all eligible Ministries or divisions or departments for information.
(4) Seniority of a F.G.S. In the relevant G.W.L. Shall be determined from the date of his entitlement to the class of accommodation.
(5) If the date of entitlement of two or more F.G.Ss. Is the same, the seniority shall be determined on the basis of length of service in the BPS and if the length of service in BPS is the same then the seniority shall be determined from the date of birth.
(6) If an allottee is transferred or sent on deputation to out station to an eligible department, he shall carry his seniority with him and shall be allotted accommodation at the new station of his posting on the basis of his date of entitlement to the class of accommodation.
(7) Federal Secretaries (BPS-22) and officers in BPS-22 will be given priority of allotment of accommodation in case they are not in occupation of Government accommodation elsewhere.
7. Mode of allotment.--- (1) The allotment of government owned accommodation shall be made to the most senior F.G.S. On G.W.L. Of a particular class or category of accommodation.
(2) Allotment of pool accommodation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I.S.I. Only be made by the Estate Office on the recommendation of the relevant department.
(3) Allotment in each class and category shall be made subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the form of allotment letter as set out in Annexure "D".
(4) In case a house of his entitlement is not available, a F.G.S. May be allotted an accommodation of a class or category lower than his entitlement on payment of normal rent on maturity of his turn on the basis of G.W.L. Of that category."
' It would be pertinent to mention here that in the meeting dated 10-10-2007, held under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Housing and Works), it was decided that employees of the P.I.M.S. Would be non-entitled for Government accommodation in view of the fact, that they had their own residential colony and allotments were being made on the recommendations of the P.I.M.S. Authorities. However, it was clarified that the allotments already made shall not be reversed.
Clause (v) of the said minutes is explicit in this regard which reads as follows:--- "(v) The employees of P.I.M.S. Will be declared non-entitled for Government accommodation in view of the fact, that they have their own residential colony and allotment of which is being made on the recommendation of P.I.M.S. Authorities. However, allotments already made will not be reversed. Henceforth, the allotments of P.I.M.S. Colony will be made by P.I.M.S. Authorities at their own."
7. Since applications for allotments of accommodation by the petitioner and others including the respondents Nos.4 and 6 appear to have been made after the promulgation of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, therefore, in order to set the controversy at rest we deem it appropriate to direct the Departmental Allotment Committee to examine cases of the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.4 and 6, in the light of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 and finalize the same within one month of the receipt of the copy of this judgment, positively.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is converted into appeal and disposed of in the above terms.