' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- The brief facts giving rise to this petition are to the effect that the petitioner is serving as a Lecturer in BS-17 in the Federal Government College for Men, F-10/4, Islamabad. As a Government servant he is entitled to allotment of official residence from the pool of respondent No,2. Upon the petitioner's application Quarter No,66/4-E, Sector F-6/1, Islamabad, was allotted to the petitioner through Letter No,66/4-E, F-6/1/EIV/EO, dated 27-10-2007. The possession, however, of the said quarter was not delivered to the petitioner. Respondent No,2 later on allotted another official residence to the, petitioner bearing House No,9/2, CAT:III Sector G-10/2, Islamabad through letter No,9/2 CAT:III G- 10/2/EIV/E0, dated 5-1-2008, on "subject to vacation basis". The possession of the said house, however, was not delivered to the petitioner as respondent No,3, the previous allottee of the said official residence, is still residing in the same. The petitioner made several requests for vacation of the house in question but the respondents have delayed the matter on one pretext or the other.
2. Reports and parawise comments were called for from respondents Nos.1 and 2 and notice was also issued to respondent No,3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed their reports and parawise comments and respondent No,3 after repeated notices entered appearance on 6-12-2010 when he sought time to engage counsel. Respondent No,3 was given time and the petition was fixed for today. Respondent No,3 has filed his parawise comments but has failed to enter appearance today either in person or through counsel. He is accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been allotted House No,9/2, CAT: Ill, Sector G-10/2, Islamabad, as his official residence. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have delayed handing over possession of the said house to the petitioner on one pretext or the other including the excuse that respondent No,3 is still residing in the house. Further submits that respondent No,3 retired on 19-11-2009 from Government service. According to the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, respondent No,2 could retain the official residence for a period of six months from the date of his superannuation. As a consequence, respondent No,3 having retired on 19-11-2009 could retain his official residence uptil 18-5-2010 whereas respondent No,3 is still residing in the house without any entitlement and/or lawful orders.
4. It is contended that Rule 15(2) of the Rules, ibid, allows only a one time extension not exceeding six months to a retiring Government official for retaining his official residence. Consequently, respondent No,3 could only retain the house for six months and that period expired on 18-5-2010.
Any extension thereafter is void and illegal. Relies on a decision dated 17-12-2009 of a learned Division Bench of this Court passed in I.C.A. No, 149 of 2009 arising out of Writ Petition No,1067 of 2009.
5. Further submits that, assuming without conceding, the official residence in question has been ordered to be retained by respondent No,3 in relaxation of rules under Rule 29-A of the Rules, ibid, the said order is illegal and without lawful authority as Rule 29-A, ibid, is only applicable to Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules ibid as held through order. Dated 27-4-2009 of the honorable Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, passed in Writ Petition No,216 of 2009.
6. Prays that the retention of the house in question by respondent No,3 be declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and respondents Nos.1 and 2 be directed to deliver the vacant possession of the official residence in question to the petitioner without any further delay.
7. The learned Standing Counsel has controverted the stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner by, inter alia, contending that the house in question was allotted to respondent No,3 in accordance with the Rules, ibid. Respondent No,3 has been allowed to retain the house in question on standard rent after retirement subject to payment of advance tent by the Minister for Housing and Works through order, dated 16-12-2009. Respondent No,3 is currently serving in the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan as the Personal Secretary to the Governor of Gilgit-Baltistan. As such, respondent No,3 is entitled to retain the house in question. Contends that the house in question can only be handed over to the petitioner once it becomes vacant. Further contends that respondent No,3 has been allowed to retain the house in question by the competent authority in relaxation of Rules.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel. I have also gone through the parawise comments filed by respondent No,3 which are, inter alia, to the effect that respondent No,3 can retain the house in question after his retirement during the period of his contract employment and for a further period of six months even after the expiry of the contract period. Respondent No,3 has further referred to Rule 3(4) of the Rules, ibid, to contend that as an employee on contract he is entitled to retain the house in question.
9. I am afraid I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel and/or the stand taken by respondent No,3.
' Rule 15(2) of the Rules, ibid, deals with the matter in issue and is quite unequivocal. It is being reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:- "15. Retention of Accommodation.
(1)........................................................................................................
(a) ..................
(b) .............................
(2) An allottee, on his retirement or expiry of contract period shall be entitled to retain the accommodation under his occupation for a period not exceeding six months, on payment of normal rent and this facility will be available to FGS once only."
10. As will be clear the entitlement to retain the official accommodation can be availed of by an FGS (Federal Government Servant) "once only". This interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the Rules, ibid, is fortified by the judgment dated 17-12-2009 of a learned Division Bench of this Court passed in I.C.A.
No,149 of 2009. The learned' Division Bench in para-8 of the judgment whilst interpreting Rule 15(2) of the Rules (ibid), has held that:- "(8) The Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, as re-produced above provides for only one extension period of six months to a person, who is in government service or is reemployed on contract. The appellant has availed of the one time extension of six months after his retirement from 29-11-2008 to 28-5-2009 and the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, which govern the terms and conditions of government employees whether regular or on re-employed on contract basis do not envisage any further period beyond six months after the age of retirement"
11. As to the contention of the learned Standing' Counsel that respondent No,3 has been granted an extension by the competent authority in relaxation of Rules, suffice it to say that no evidence of any such extension having been granted has been placed on the record.
12. Under the circumstances, this petition is accepted and it is declared that the order of retention of the official residence in question by respondent No,3 is illegal and without lawful authority.
Respondents No, 2 and 3 are accordingly directed to deliver the vacant possession of the official residence in question, described in para-3 above, to the petitioner within two months from today.
13. There is no order as to costs.