' AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- Through this ICA, the Appellants that is the Government of Punjab has impugned judgment dated 10.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No,5259/2011.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the Respondent who is a member of the Establishment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore applied for the allotment of official residence in the year 2001 while he was serving as Assistant Registrar BS-17. At that time when he applied he was at Serial No,743 of the waiting list in 3-4 rooms category. Over a passage of eight years, the Respondent reached Serial No,396 in the year 2008. On 14.1.2008 the post of Assistant Registrar was up graded to BS-18.
Consequently the Respondent was entitled to 'C' category residence under the Allotment Policy of S&GAD, 1997 ("Allotment Policy"). On 19.1.2009, the Appellants amended the Allotment Policy ("Amended. Policy"), such that the Respondent and other employees of Lahore High Court who had applied prior to the Amended Policy were no longer entitled to 'C' category residences. The Respondent along with others were asked to get themselves registered afresh for allotment of residences under the Amended Policy. The Respondent applied afresh on 1.4.2015 when he was placed at Serial No,800 in the 'C' category residence waiting list. It is noted that at this time the Respondent was promoted to BS-19 as Deputy Registrar and under the Amended Policy became entitled to 'C' category residence. The Respondent being aggrieved challenged the retrospective effect of the Amended Policy before this Court, since he was placed at the bottom of the list for allotment of residence despite the maturity of his turn.
3. The grievance of the Appellants is that the impugned judgment declared that the. Respondent has a vested right for the allotment of official residence under the Amended Policy and consequently directed the Appellants to grant 'C' category residence to the Respondent and all other employees who have registered themselves prior to the Amended Policy on the basis of the maturity of their turn since 2001. Learned Law Officer argued that the Respondent does not have a vested right for allotment based on clause 15 of the Allotment Policy of S&GAD 1997, amended on 19.1.2009 which categorically provides that 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. In this regard, he has also relied upon the judgment of this Court cited at Agha Nadeem v. Additional Secretary Welfare and 3 others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 268). It is their case that the Respondent is entitled to residence on maturity of his turn and not before that. Currently he is placed at Serial No,720 of the waiting list and must wait his turn for residence.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent pleaded that the Respondent applied for official residence under the. Allotment Policy in the year 2001. The Respondent's entitlement accrued over the years under the Allotment Policy and was placed at Serial No,396 in the year 2008 from Serial No,743.
Learned counsel argued that the Respondent has been waiting for 16 years for official residence and under the garb of an amendment to the Allotment Policy, the Appellants deprived the Respondent of the maturity of his turn on the waiting list and required him to apply afresh under the Amended Policy. Learned counsel referred to I.C.A. No,592/2011 titled Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Mr. Fazal Karim, wherein the same Amended Policy was under challenge and the Appellants accepted the case of the respondent in that case and made a statement before the Court that they are ready, to provide the respondent, Reader of the Lahore High Court, official residence. Learned counsel submitted that the policy in question was the same, the right to allotment was the same. In that case the Appellants agreed to the allotment as per the prayer of the respondent yet are discriminating against the present Respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellants cannot be allowed to take up two different positions in a similar case to the detriment of the Respondent.
5. Heard and record perused.
6. The judgment under challenge in the instant case has declared that the Amended Policy will apply prospectively and not retrospectively, hence will not be applicable to those employees who applied prior to the proclamation of the Amended Policy. The Appellants have challenged this declaration on the ground that the Respondent does not have a vested right for government residence under the Amended Policy. We are of the opinion that the declaration with respect to the effectiveness of the date of the amendment made in the Amended Policy is in accordance with law and the Amended Policy will have prospective effect and will not apply retrospectively. This means that the maturity of turn accrued under the Allotment Policy is not washed away by the Amended Policy and will carry forward under the Amended Policy. Consequently the Respondent will retain his maturity in turn on the waiting list under the Amended Policy. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the Amended Policy which provides that it will have retrospective effect, hence by way of an amendment, the period of waiting spent under the Allotment Policy cannot be denied because the maturity of turn under the Allotment Policy is a right which has accrued in favour of the Respondent. The said right recognizes and protects the time spent in waiting for his turn to mature under the Allotment Policy. This right cannot be vitiated simply because of an amendment because if that were the. Case then with every amendment, the Government could deny and deprive employees of. Their turn for allotment of residence. Such an interpretation would prejudice the rights of employees whose turns have matured under the Allotment Policy after waiting for considerable number of years. In this case, the Respondent applied for official residence in 2001 and his right to be given official residence under the policy matured over a period of time, such that he was placed at Serial No,396 in the year 2008. The Amended Policy required fresh applications to be made for allotment of government residence. Essentially the Appellants nullified the waiting period of nine years whereby the Respondent had acquired maturity of his turn.
Furthermore the right of maturity of turn is different from a vested right as argued by the learned Law Officer. The Respondent was not agitating based on a vested right for allotment of government residence. He wanted the maturity of turn accrued in his favour to be retained under the Amended Policy. This maturity of turn cannot vitiate with every amendment as it would give the Government the ability to deprive officers of residence and could also mean that those who apply for the first time under the Amended Policy could get government residence before someone who has been waiting for long fifteen years. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Law Officer 2014 PLC (C.S.) 268 (supra) is distinguishable as it is based on different facts. In that case the issue was with respect to retaining official residence whereas in the instant case the Respondent claims maturity of his turn in the relevant category for provision of official residence under the Amended Policy. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the Respondent does not fall under clause 15 of the Amended Policy but the maturity of turn is a right which has accrued in his favour on account of the Allotment Policy itself. By amending the Allotment Policy the Appellants deprived the Respondent of the maturity of his turn which they could not do. The period of time spent waiting under the Allotment Policy could not be vitiated by the Amended Policy and the right that has matured under the Allotment Policy for grant of residence cannot be taken away.
7. The next question that arises is what type of residence the Respondent is entitled to under .The Amended Policy. The basic grievance of the Respondent was that he is entitled to 'C' category residence since 2008 but is being denied the same. The Appellants contended that he is not entitled to 'C' category residence on account of the Amended Policy. The position today is that admittedly the Respondent is entitled to 'C' category residence under the Amended Policy, however, on account of the fresh applications made on 1.4.2015, he was placed at Serial No,800 and at present is at Serial No,720 meaning thereby that he has to wait till his turn matures for the residence which may take several years. In this regard, the learned Law Officer explained that the Respondent is on the waiting list and will be allotted 'C' category residence when his turn will come.
We have already held that the Amended Policy cannot take away the maturity of turn. Therefore, the Respondent is entitled to get 'C' category residence based on the maturity of his turn which has accrued in his favour since 2008.
8. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed and impugned judgment dated 10.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is maintained.