' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.--- Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent for allotment of quarter No,493-A situated at Bakery Chowk Westridge, Rawalpindi on the basis of Father to Son Policy.
3.(sic) The brief facts of the case are that a quarter No,493-A, situated at Bakery Chowk Westridge, Rawalpindi was allotted to the father of the petitioner being employee of Pakistan Railway but unfortunately he later on died during his service and the said accommodation was allowed to be retained by the widow of the deceased i,e, mother of the petitioner, for five years. The said retention period expired on 23.02.2012. The petitioner, who is working as Muawan in Pakistan Railways in Loco Shed Rawalpindi, applied for the allotment of the said accommodation on the basis of "Father to Son Policy" but the respondent did not give positive response of it. The petitioner also applied to the Minister for Pakistan Railways, for the allotment of the above-said quarter and the Minister recommended for the allotment of the said quarter in the name of petitioner but even then the respondent did not make allotment of the said quarter to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sought direction, through this constitution petition to the respondent for allotment of the above- said quarter to the petitioner on the basis of "Father to Son Policy" of Pakistan Railways.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent cannot refuse to the petitioner about the allotment of above-said quarter in the light of Father to Son Policy of Pakistan Railway and respondent is bound to allot the said quarter in the name of the petitioner in which the petitioner along with his family is living; that the respondent has been allotted several quarters to its employees on the basis of Father to Son Policy; that if the said quarter is not allotted in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and it will be amounting to violation of the Father to Son Policy. He has relied upon the Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner is upon Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 (amended on 04th of August, 2004), The said provisions are reproduced as under for ready reference:- "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"; and". (Emphasis provided).
' He also argued that rule 29A of the Rules ibid the Federal Government is also entitled to relax any rule governing allotment of accommodation to eligible FGS in public interest for deserving and hardship cases.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the mother of the petitioner remained in possession of the disputed quarter for five years without payment of any rent which period expired in the year 2012 and since then the petitioner is in illegal possession of the property; that there is no vested right of the petitioner that he should be provided with an accommodation by the Railways Authorities; that the policy matters cannot be interfered under the constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Bare perusal of the above-referred rules clearly reveals that the accommodation, which was earlier allotted to the FOS can be allotted to his serving spouse or children. This proviso to the sub- rule (2) is with regard to an allottee on his retirement or expiry of his contract but it is not with regard to a person who died during the service or within six months after his retirement. Rule 15 of the Rules ibid is applicable in the present case. The rule 15(1) is reproduced as under for ready reference:- "In case of death of allottee.-- (a) the family of the allottee shall be entitled to retain the accommodation under their occupation for period not exceeding one year on payment of normal rent; and (b) his serving widow or serving legitimate children may be allotted the said accommodation provided he is eligible for the accommodation or becomes eligible for the said accommodation within one year of the event. In case the allottee expires within six months after retirement, his serving spouse or legitimate children may be considered for allotment provided all other conditions are met. Where the accommodation is of a class or category higher than his entitlement, he shall be allotted the first available accommodation in that class or category as the case may be, and shall not be dislodged and shall be charged normal rent till such time as the alternative accommodation of his entitlement has been made available to him" (Emphasis provided).
7. It is reflected from the above-referred rule that serving widow or serving legitimate children of deceased employee can be allotted the accommodation which was earlier in possession of their predecessor through legitimate allotment but there is a rider that it can only be allotted if the person is eligible or becomes eligible within one year of the event i,e, death of the predecessor. In the present case, admittedly the mother of the petitioner was allowed to retain the possession of the disputed house for five years which period expired on 23.02.2012 and then onwards the petitioner has retained the possession of the disputed house under the stay order granted by this Court. According to the policy for allotment of Railway accommodation and retention etc. 1993 (other than. Officers), no employee can be allotted any accommodation beyond his entitlement under any circumstances. However, in case of allotment on compassionate grounds following criteria has been laid down:-- ALLOTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS
8. (a) On retirement of an employee the allotment of a residential unit allotted to him can be transferred to his son/daughter living with him/her provided that:-
(i) He/she belongs to the same or higher category of staff.
(ii) The son/daughter has at least 10 years regular service and:
(iii) Is entitled for such allotment/accommodation (Emphasis Provided).
8. In the present case, the petitioner joined the service in the year 2007 and till today he has not served for a period of ten years, C therefore, he cannot claim the allotment of said quarter as a matter of right.
9. Even otherwise, the allotment of a residential accommodation is not a vested or fundamental right of any employee, therefore, he cannot be termed as an aggrieved person under the provisions of Article of 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reliance is placed upon the cases reported as Mst. Altaf Bibi v. Government of Pakistan and others (2006 PLC (C.S.) 803) and Malik Tahir Mehmood v. Chief Executive Islamabad Electric Supply Company, Islamabad and another (2005 PLC (C.S.) 279).
10. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.