The facts relevant, for the present controversy , were mentioned in detail in judgment of this Court deciding instant writ petition on 18.01.2019, hence are borrowed from there and are as follows:
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are employees of National Assembly . In this regards Petitioner No. 1 is working as Deputy-Secretary National Assembly Secretariat, Islamabad. He had government accommodation and was living with his wife and children. He contracted 2nd marriage with Petitioner No. 2, who also is an employee of National Assembly Secretariat, Islamabad and was allotted government accommodation independently . In this behalf the government accommodation allotted to Petitioner No. 1 was on hiring basis and the rent was paid by the employer , however , the government accommodation of Petitioner No. 2 was through Estate Office. The disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioners on the basis that they concealed the matter and got allotted second house which could not have been done. In this behalf an explanation was sought on 26.8.2014 and subsequently the, petitioners were charge sheeted on 11.5.2015. Inquiry proceedings were held and twice the inquiry officer recommended his opinion, however , the same was apparently discarded and the third inquiry as such de novo was ordered to be initiated against the petitioners".
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioners assail the decision of denovo inquiry and the disciplinary proceedings as well as seek direction for restoration of hiring facility and amendment in Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 (the Rules) in light of decision of Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court in case reported as 'Professor Kazim Hussain and Others vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary , Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others' (PLD 2013 Federal Shariat Court 18): The instant petition was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 18.01.2019, whereby initiation of denovo inquiry , by the respondents, was held to be without lawful authority , whereas the relief, to the extent of direction to the respondents for amendment in the Rules, was declined. Both the parties assailed the said judgment by way of Civil Petitions for Leave