' RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.--- This order is directed to dispose of Writ Petition No, 3765 of 2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is serving as Director (BPS-18) in the Directorate of National Savings Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. He is presently residing in an 'E-Type House', but is entitled to 'F-Type House'. The petitioner had applied for allotment of `F-Type House', and the disputed house was allotted to him vide letter dated 18-12-2008; the allotment was however, subject to vacation . The said house was then in possession of one Abdur Razzaq, who retied in November, 2009. The family of said Abdur Razzaq could retain the house for six months and the said period was to end in May, 2010. Prior to that, the petitioner having apprehension of cancellation of his allotment, instituted a suit in the Civil Court, Islamabad. The Estate Officer gave a categorical statement before the Court that they had no intention to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, wife of said Abdur Razzaq (presently respondent No, 3) instituted suit for allotment of the said house, which was dismissed under Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C. She filed appeal, but afterwards withdrew the same. She then filed Writ Petition No,2878 of 2010, which was disposed of, with the direction that the Estate Office should take decision on the application filed by respondent No,3 (wife of aforementioned Abdur Razzaq). Respondent No,3 then succeeded in getting an 'allotment order' issued by the Section Officer, M/o Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, regarding allotment of the same house. The said order is dated 12-8-2010. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the same, filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been allotted the said house, vide 'allotment order' dated 18-12-2008, in accordance with law. The said allotment was made by the Joint Estate Officer, who was competent authority to make the allotment. Whereas, the allotment in favour of respondent No,3 was illegal as it was not made by the competent authority; secondly, the respondent No,3 was not entitled to the allotment of 'F-Type House' the allotment in favour of respondent No,3 was in relaxation of rules, which was not n accordance with law. It was further contended that according to the policy of Estate Office, the accommodation allotted to a retired Federal Government Servant could be allotted to his spouse or children, subject to entitlement and not otherwise.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3, contended that the Estate Office is under the Control of M/o Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan and the disputed house was allotted to respondent No,3, by M/o Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, which was in relaxation of rules and therefore, respondent No,3, had been properly allotted the said house.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. Rule 2(b) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 defines `allottee', which is as follows:-- "2.(b) "allottee" means a Government servant possessing a valid allotment letter duly issued by the Estate Office for an accommodation in his occupation."
The definition of `allottee' shows that only letter issued IA by the Estate Office, can be considered as a valid allotment and no other letter.
7. In the present case, the 'allotment letter' available with respondent No,3 has not been issued by the Estate Office and therefore, it cannot be considered as a proper 'allotment letter'. The arguments that since Estate Office is subordinate to the M/o Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan and therefore, the order issued by the Ministry would also be valid, is not correct, for the reason that the same is not covered by the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. If the law requires something to be done in a specific manner, then that thing ought to be done in that manner alone and not in any other way. Law cannot be B changed on the basis of presumptions or for the convenience of a particular person; if law provides that `allottee' would be a person having 'allotment letter' issued by the Estate Office, then only order issued by Estate Office would be proper 'allotment order' and no other order. I, therefore, hold that 'allotment letter' in possession of respondent No, 3 is not a valid 'allotment order'.
8. Rule 15 is regarding retention of accommodation and sub-rule (2) of the same deals with retention of accommodation by spouse or children of retired Government Servant; for the seek of convenience, the same is reproduced below: "15(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.
[Provided that the serving spouse or children living with FGS may be allotted the same accommodation, if he is eligible and otherwise entitled for accommodation within six months of the retirement of the FGS. If the accommodation allotted is higher than the entitlement of the spouse or children, he may apply in writing for the allotment of accommodation in accordance with his eligibility, in lieu of the occupied accommodation. The spouse or children shall not be eligible for allotment of accommodation of higher category.]"
' The above said rule clearly provides that a spouse or children of a retired employee can be allotted the same accommodation, if he is eligible, but shall not be eligible for allotment of accommodation of higher category. In the present case, the wife of retired employee has been allotted the house, for which she was not eligible.
9. As far as relaxation is concerned, the Federal Government under rule 29A of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, has the power to relax rules. The said rule is reproduced below: "*129A. Relaxation of Rules.--- The Federal Government may relax any rule governing allotment of accommodation to eligible FGS in public interest for deserving and hardship cases and on compassionate grounds for reasons to be recorded in writing for such relaxation.]"
The above said rule shows that it is a discretionary power available to the Federal Government, but the law requires that the discretion must be exercised fairly, justly and in accordance with law. The discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily and on the basis of pick and choose. The Federal Government, no doubt, has authority to relax any rule, but that has to be exercised in public interest for deserving and hardship cases and on compassionate grounds, for reasons to be recorded, for such relaxation. It obviously means that the order of relaxation must be speaking order, based on reasons. Such an order should not be amalgamated with the 'order of allotment'. If the Federal Government intends to relax any rule regarding allotment of accommodation, then the 'order of relaxation' should be communicated to the Estate Office as the Estate Office is the only body to issue `allotment letter'. After relaxation of rules by the Federal Government, the Estate Office can issue 'allotment letter' on the basis of relaxation granted by the Government.
10. In the present case, no reason in writing has been given for relaxation of rules and therefore, the order regarding relaxation of rules is not in accordance with rule 29-A of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. This practice is also deprecated that one 'allotment order' is issued by the Estate Office and an other is issued by the M/o Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan. Even, in the present case, leFned D.A.-G. Is supporting the order issued in favour of the petitioner. Once the 'allotment order' is issued by the Estate Office, then no subsequent order can be made, until and unless the first one is cancelled, in accordance with law.
11. In the above circumstances, I accept this write petition; the 'allotment order' issued in favour of respondent No,3, is declared as illegal and without lawful authority. Possession of the disputed house be F handed over to the petitioner, after vacation of the same, in accordance with law.