' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 presents a classic picture of highhandedness on the part of the executive authorities, even while dealing with its own employees.
2. Dr. Muhammad Latif, petitioner, herein, is an employee of Government of Punjab in BS-19 and is presently working as Project Director, Science Education Project, Lahore. He is residing in 3/4 rooms quarter allotted to him, though under the policy of the Government as reflected in its letter dated 21-1-1984, he was entitled to a 'B' type residence.
3. On 22-10-1990, he was informed that house No,B-76, GOR-II, Bahawalpur House, Lahore (under construction) had been earmarked to him for allotment. Surprisingly, however, before he could occupy the house, the aforesaid order was rescinded on 20-3-1991 and the Additional Secretary in the Secretariat, Chief Minister, Punjab communicated the desire of Chief Minister, Punjab that the said house be allotted to Mr. Javed Nisar Syed, Deputy Secretary to the Governor, respondent No,3, herein by cancelling the allotment from the name of the petitioner.
4. On Ist April, 1991, the petitoner represented against the canellation of his allotment to the Chief Minister on various grounds inter alia that propety No, B-76, 190R-II, Bahawalpur House, Lahore could not be allotted to respondent No,3 who is an employee in BS-18. This representation was accepted by the Chief Minister on 2-4-1991 and formal order of allotment was issued in his favour on 10-4-1991. Strangely enough notwithstanding acceptance of the represenation of the petitioner, respondent No,3 on 6-4-1992 without any allotment took possession of the property in question, without any allotment order.
5. It is unfortunate that on 15th April, 1992 yet another order was passed by the Chief Minister, superseding all his previous orders and allotting the property to respondent No,3. As regards petitioner, it was observed that he should be given some alternative accommodation according to his entitlement on first available basis. This order of the Chief Minister dated 15th April, 1991 which was communicated to the petitioner on 25th April, 1991 has been assailed in this petition.
6. In the written statement filed by the respondents, none of these facts have been disputed. The entitlement of the petitioner to 'B' type accommodation has been admitted but it has been stated that it depends upon its availability. The factum of various orders passed from time to time has been admitted. The reason disclosed for cancellation of allotment from the name of the petitioner is that he was already occupying Government accommodation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, has argued that the impugned order suffers from malice of law as well as of fact. He urged that the allotment of the petitioner has been cancelled at the behest of respondent No,3 who was working as Deputy Secretary to the Governor of Punjab. It was emphasized that even in matters of discretion, the power vesting in public functionary must be exercised in a reasonable, fair and just manner and no person should be discriminated against.
8. No one has appeared for respondents Nos,1 and 2. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 has been heard.
9. There is no dispute that petitioner is presently working in BS-19 and was as such entitled to 'B' type accommodation in terms of Policy Letter of the Government dated 21-1-1984 (Annexure A).
From the same letter, it is clear that an employee in BS-18 is entitled to 'C' type residence.
Consequently, according to the policy of the Government itself, respondent No,3, being in BS-18 could not be allotted the house-in-question. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be struck down. Only on this ground.
10. Be that as it may, there is also considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not been dealt with in a fair, just and lawful manner. Although it is correct that allotment of residence cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a Government servant but he is certainly entitled to be dealt with according to law. By now it is well-settled that in a fair, reasonable and unbiased manner. The Chief Minister, having himself once accepted the representation filed by the petitioner on 2nd April, 1991 and restored the original allotment, could not subsequently pass any order, superseding all pervious orders and that too, without disclosing any reason. To say the least, from the circumstances of the case, the conclusion which is inevitable is that the impugned order is whimsical and arbitrary and appears to have been passed in colourable exercise of discretion. Reference in this connection may be made to Aman Ullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092) and Ihsan Ullah Bajwa v. Chairman, City and Regional Planning Department and others (1991 M LD 1688).
11. It is also to be noticed that the Chief Minister of Punjab while recalling his order on 15th April, 1991 directed that the petitioner be allotted some alternative accommodation according to his entitlment on first available basis. Unfortunately, this direction of the Chief Minister was not carried out or given effect to as is obvious from a copy of the allotment order dated 20-2-1991 which shows that 'B' type residence was allotted to another officer.
' For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed; orders of respondents dated 15th April, 1991 and 25th April, 1991 are declared to be unlawful and of no legal effect. Respondents are directed to allot 'B' type residence to the petitioner within one month from today failing which they shall deliver the possession of Property No,B-76 GOR-II, Bahawalpur House, Lahore to the petitioner in terms of the allotment order issued in his favour.
' There shall be no order as to costs.