' Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction to Respondent No. 1/Chief Secretary for allotment of Quarter No. K-63, Wahdat Colony, Lahore in the name of his son namely Qasim Pervez Constable (No. 21287).
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner retired as Naib Tehsildar at Lahore in BS-15 after serving 42 years in service. The petitioner was allotted two room junior quarter below entitlement.
The petitioner retired on 23.06.2012. The petitioner made an application to the respondents for allotment of quarter No. K-63, Wahdat Colony, Lahore which was already in his occupation, in the name of either of his sons who qualify for the said allotment under Parent Concession Scheme. In response to the said request of the petitioner, the Chief Minister, Punjab was pleased to direct Additional Chief Secretary to examine the case of the petitioner and put up a summary within 07- days. This letter was written to the Additional Chief Secretary on 24.03.2012 but no report was sent inspite of reminder dated 25.5.2012. Being disappointed from the respondents, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 17225/2012 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2012 directed Respondent No. 2 to decide representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Respondent No. 2 in compliance of order dated 29.06.2012 passed in W.P. No. 17225/2012, Respondent No. 2/Additional Chief Secretary considered only son of the petitioner namely Abdul Aziz, Security Guard (BS-1), Jinnah Hospital, Lahore and rejected application on the ground that petitioner's son does not qualify for the allotment of said quarter under Allotment Policy, hence, this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that his son namely Qasim Pervez Constable (21287) Punjab Constabulary BS-05 is fully qualified to be accommodated under Allotment Policy under Parent Concession Scheme. He further submits that application to the extent of his son Abdul Aziz has illegally and unlawfully been rejected. .Further submits that it is a case of discrimination as one Amir Salamat, Mazhar Hussain and Hafiz Imran Khan have been accommodated according to the Policy which they are not entitled. On the other hand learned Addl. Advocate General contends that petitioner's son does not qualify for allotment of the quarter as per Allotment Policy-2009 particularly Paras No. 7, 15 and 30.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. For the following reasons this writ petition is liable to be dismissed:--
(i) As per Para No. 15 of the Allotment Policy no one can claim a vested right to provide residential accommodation which is reproduced herein below:-- "The Provincial Government has no legal obligation to provide residential accommodation to any Government servant and no Government servant has any vested legal right or claim to the allotment of Government owned residential accommodation."
' The petitioner has no vested right for government accommodation. Reliance is placed on ease law titled as "Dil Awaiz Khan v. Government of Punjab through Secretary 'Colonies Department and another" (PLD 2014 Lahore 50). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below: "A vested right is created when it is mature in every respect and no contingency exists before its completion. When merely the passing of formal order remains to finalize the status of a claimant then according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nabi Ahmed and another v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1969 SC 599 at page 616) his entitlement qualifies as a vested right. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below: "What is a vested right According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "vested" means "clothed, robed, dressed especially in ecclesiastical vestments.... Vested rights essentially differ.... From rights. Which are contingent.... That is, completely created vested interests may perhaps be defined as rights based not upon contract but upon custom". A close examination of these meanings and explanations reveals that a vested right is free from contingencies, but not in the sense that it is exercisable anywhere and at any moment."
' Reference may also be made to the case law titled as "Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Zubair Asif and 4 others" (1998 MLD 617). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below: "In these circumstances, it was not open to the Trial Court to substitute its own decision as regards merit position of both the applicants for the allotment of a Government accommodation for there is no vested right under the law in any Government servant to claim allotment of Government accommodation and if in these circumstances the functionaries of the State found petitioner more eligible, deserving and needy as compared to Respondent No. 1, the same could not have been interfered with or held mala fide as such the findings on Issues Nos. 6, 7 and 3 are hereby reversed and the said issues are decided in favour of the petitioner."
' Reference may also be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore reported as "Asif Mahmood v. Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and another" (2005 MLD 589).
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:-- "It is also settled principle of law that it is the prerogative of the Competent Authority to allot the Government accommodation to the employee or not and it is not a vested right of any Government employee to retain the house as of right and the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Tahir Hussain's case (PLD 1962 SC 75).
' References may also be made to the case laws reported as "Magsood Ahmed Toor and 4 others v.
Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad and others" (2000 SCMR 928) and "Agha Nadeem v. Additional Secretary Welfare and 3 others" (2014 PLC (C.S.) 268) and "Agha Nadeem v. Additional Secretary Welfare, Government of the Punjab, Services and General Administration Department Lahore and 2 others"
(ii) The petitioner applied for the allotment of said government accommodation in the name of his son Qasim Pervez, Police Constable No. 21287 under Parent Concession Scheme vide his application dated 24.02.2010 through Chief Minister Directive dated 25.02.2010. His request was considered and vide letter dated 15.03.2010 the petitioner was informed that competent authority has considered his request and regretted being contrary to the Allotment Policy. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 15.03.2010 which has attained finality. This is so stated by respondents in their report and parawise comments as preliminary Objection No.2.
(iii) This writ petition suffers from laches on the face of it as order was passed on 15.03.2010 whereas the writ petition was filed on 15.11.2012 after a delay of about 03 years.
(iv) Earlier the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 17225/2012 for allotment of said government accommodation in the name of his son namely Abdul Aziz which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2012 with the following observations:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied, if the direction be issued to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the application pending before him.
2. Let a copy of this petition alongwith all the annexure be transmitted to Respondent No. 2, who shall treat this petition as representation of the petitioner and take a decision thereon after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month."
' The department considered representation of the petitioner and decided the same vide order dated 31.08.2012 as under:- "4. AND WHEREAS, so far as request of the applicant for allotment of subject quarter in the name of his son Mr. Abdul Aziz, Security Guard (BS-1), Jinnah Hospital, Lahore is concerned, it is clear as per para 30(a) of the Allotment Policy "the allottees on their retirement will be entitled to have their allotments transferred in the names of their real sons/daughters, belonging to the eligible department only and is serving in Basic Scale equivalent or higher than required for the allotment of the said Government residence, subject to rent clearance and all utility bills. The retiring Government servant should apply for such allotment within a period of one year before his/her retirement". Mr. Abdul Aziz belongs to ineligible department i.e. Health Department and cannot be allotted a government accommodation, under Parent Concession Scheme, out of the Pool of S&GAD. Moreover, the said residence is also above his entitlement. Hence his request is contrary to Para-30(a) of the Allotment Policy.
5. AND WHERE AS, it is pertinent to mention here that the Chief Minister, Punjab has also regretted the request of the applicant on a summary being above entitlement and the applicant belongs to ineligible department.
6. NOW THEREFORE, after having gone through the record and affording opportunity of personal hearing, I, SUHAIL AAMIR, am of the view that request/representation of Mr. Pervaiz Akhtar regarding allotment of Quarter No. K-63, Wahdat Colony, Lahore to Mr. Abdul Aziz, Security Guard (BS-01), ,iinnah Hospital, Lahore, under Parent Concession Scheme is not covered under Allotment Policy.
Hence, the same is rejected."
' It appears that petitioner is in the habit of filing writ petitions and at no cost wants to vacate the government residence.
(v) The petitioner applied for allotment of said government accommodation in the name of his son Qasim Pervez, Police Constable No. 21287. In this regard Para-7 of the Policy is reproduced herein below:- "Only the Govt. Servants posted at the Principal Seat, Lahore High Court, Lahore, Punjab Civil Secretariat and Provincial Assembly of Punjab, posted at Lahore, are eligible for allotment of Government owned accommodation. A Govt. Servant who is transferred out of Lahore or out of the institutions referred above will lose his eligibility after expiry of the period for which he or his family can retain possession of the residential accommodation as specified in Para-33.
' The case of the son of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Para-7 of the Policy as petitioner's son is neither servant at Principal Seat, Lahore High Court, Lahore, nor in Punjab Civil Secretariat and Provincial Assembly of Punjab, therefore, he is not entitled for the said government accommodation.
(vi) The petitioner's son is also not entitled under Para-30(a) of the Policy as he does not belong to eligible departments as stated in Para No. 7 of the Allotment Policy.
(vii) As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that one Amir Salamat, Mazhar Hussain and Hafiz Imran Khan have been accommodated under Parents Concession Scheme is concerned, if allotments have made in their favour then the petitioner should have impleaded them as party so that they may explain the allegation leveled by the petitioner. However, if allotment has been made in violation of policy, the department should take action against them in accordance with law and policy applicable. There is another aspect that if they have been accommodated illegally this does not amount to discrimination as two wrongs cannot make one right. Reference may be made to case law (1998 SCMR 882 and 2011, SCMR 1239).
(vii) According to report and parawise comments the disputed quarter has been allotted to Hafiz Muhammad Asla In Staff Car Driver, S&GAD, hence, this writ petition is liable to be failed on the ground that petitioner has not impleaded him as he was necessary party to whom disputed quarter has been allotted.
(viii) The petitioner submitted an application to the Chief Minister for some favourable order and when the same was declined, he filed this writ petition, therefore he has estopped to file the same.
(ix) According to report and parawise comments the application of his son namely Qasim Pervez was considered and regretted on 15.03.2010, therefore, he is guilty of concealment of facts, hence, he is not entitled for discretionary relief. Reference may be made to PLD 1973 SC 236.
6. Sequel to the above, this writ has no force, hence, dismissed with no order as to cost.