' MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, Through this I.C.A the appellant impugns order dated 13-8-2012 passed by this court in Writ Petition No,1703 of 2012.
2. The facts of the case that the appellant is a D.M.G Officer BPS-21 serving as Additional Secretary Industries with the Federal Government. Previously, he was serving as Secretary Transport for the Government of Punjab. At the time the respondent No,3 allotted him residential accommodation being House No,12.A Aikman Road, G.O.R-I, Lahore. The appellant was relieved from service by the respondent No,3 in June, 2008 whereafter he reported for duty to the Federal Government and has been working in the Federal Capital since then. The respondent No,3 issued an order dated 31-12- 2011 wherein it cancelled the allotment in favour of the appellant and allotted it to respondent No,4.
The appellant filed a writ petition against the said order of 31-12-2011 which was dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber vide the impugned order. The matter in issue before us is with. respect to the appellants' right to retain the residential accommodation since June, 2008, notwithstanding the fact that he is no longer an employee of the respondent No,3 and now is in the service of the Federal Government.
3. The case of the appellant is that the allotment policy was first introduced on August 15, 1997 regarding the allotment of Government owned residential accommodation. This policy was amended from time to time and by virtue of an amendment vide S&GAD 1997 dated 19-1-2009 (the Allotment Policy) rule 33(g) entitled the appellant to retain Government accommodation in the Province of Punjab for a period of five years or until he obtains official residence in the Federal Capital. Rule 33(g) reads a follows:--- ' "Any Officer of the rank/status of Secretary, Additional Secretary and Deputy Secretary to Provincial Government, whose cadre posts exist in S&GAD, Government of the Punjab on his/her transfer out of Punjab, shall be entitled to retain allotted official accommodation, other than a designated house for a period of five years (inclusive grace period) or till the provision of accommodation at his/her place of posting whichever is earlier, providing his/her family lives in the official residence during the period."
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that R.33(g) of the Allotment Policy confers a vested right on the appellant as the Allotment Policy had been acted upon by the respondents. He argued that the right of five years cannot be taken away from the appellant pursuant to a subsequent amendment in the Allotment Policy. Reliance has been placed on the cases titled "Senior Member BOR and others v. Sardar Bakhsh Bhutta and another" (2012 SCM R 864) and "Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal" (PLD 1969 SC 187) wherein it was held that a substantive right stands accrued to a party, which avails the same prior to the amendment of such a right. In the present case, the Allotment .Policy was amended on 6-6-2011 wherein the right to retain, official accommodation was reduced from five years to two years. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the two year requirement cannot be imposed upon the appellant and that he is entitled to retain the accommodation at Lahore for five years in terms of the Allotment Policy.
5. Learned A.A.-G. opposes the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. He argued that no vested right is created in favour of the appellant. He is no longer in the service of the respondent No,3 and cannot retain the official accommodation. Furthermore he argued that the appellant has retained official accommodation, since 2008 and even if the amended period of two years was not made applicable to the appellant, the respondent No,3 was still well within its rights to eject the appellant from the official residence. He argued that rule 33(g) of the Allotment Policy relied upon by the appellant required the appellant to exercise his option to request for official residence by the Federal' Government. He argued that it was incumbent upon the appellant to secure official accommodation from the Federal Government in a timely manner. In this regard, he stated that the appellant applied for official accommodation from the Federal Government on 5th January, 2012 being three years after his transfer in 2008 and after three years of being in occupation of the official residence. The appellant, in terms of rule 33(g) cannot remain in possession of the official residence owned by the respondent No,3 and yet at the same time delay applying for residence from the Federal Government.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
7. The entire controversy revolves around policy dated 19-1-2009 rule 33(g) The said paragraph provides that an officer of the rank of Additional Secretary shall be entitled to retain allotted official accommodation for a period of five years or till the provision of accommodation at his place of posting, whichever is earlier. The meaning we attribute to whichever is earlier is that the officer upon being transferred can retain a designated house upto a period of five years provided that he applies for residential accommodation at the new place of posting. There is a requirement built into rule 33(g) wherein the officer must apply for official accommodation at the new place of his posting such that he cannot retain his previous accommodation for more than five years.
Therefore, he should apply at the earliest and should get accommodation within the five year period. We do not agree with the understanding advance by the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of 33(g) the appellant can retain official accommodation up to five years and then apply for residential accommodation from the Federal Government. Admittedly, the accommodation belongs to the respondent No,3. Admittedly it was allotted when the appellant was in the service of respondent No,3. The said allotment amounts to an entitlement while in service and not a vested right of the appellant. Upon his posting to the Federal Government, he lost the entitlement to retain official accommodation owned by the respondent No,3 and by virtue of the Allotment Policy and rule 33(g) a concession is given to him to retain the accommodation until he obtains new accommodation, for a period no A more than five years. We have reviewed the Allotment Policy and note that rule 15 of the Allotment Policy also clearly provides that no government servant has any vested right or claim to the allotment of government owned residential accommodation. The appellant was put to notice at the time. that any entitlement in his favour to retain official residence will not create a vested right in his favour. In this regard, we find that there is'no illegality with the findings of learned Single Judge in Chamber on this issue.
8. For the reasons discussed above this ICA is dismissed with no orders as to cost.