' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The employees of the Pakistan Law. Commission have filed this petition under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution praying that the respondents may be directed to bring the petitioners on their pool for allotment of official residence. It has been pleaded that the Law Commission was established under the Law Commission Ordinance No, XIV of 1979 and under section 5 of the Ordinance a separate Law Commission Secretariat was established for assisting the Commission in its functions. According to the petitioners the Commission is a part and parcel of the Ministry of Law. The Commission is drawing its budget from demand No, 102 under Other Expenditure of Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The petitioners, therefore, claim to be Government servants entitled to allocation and allotment of residence by the respondents.
2. Notice was issued to the learned Attorney-General, in response to which learned Standing Counsel appeared and sought time to seek instructions. Thereafter Works Division's Memo. U.O.
No,F. 1 (10)/93-EV., dated 4-4-1994 was placed on record which in fact forms basis for denying the petitioners' claim. According to it, the Law Commission has an autonomous character and the employees of the Commission fall outside the purview of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
The main reasons for such a conclusion is that the Chairman of the Commission is empowered to recruit officers and employees and determine terms and conditions of their service without any consultation or approval of the Government. It has further been stated that although budgetary allocations are made to the Law Commission from the general revenues of the Federal Government through Demand No, 95 (Law Division), the Establishment Division are of the view that the employees of the Law Commission are not civil servants like employees of the Federal Government, Council of Islamic Ideology, etc. A reference was also made to the provisions of rule 3.
(1) of Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993 whereby all Federal Government servants employed in the Ministries/Divisions and their attached departments except those maintaining their own pool of accommodation are eligible for accommodation from the estate office. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 3, Federal Government servants employed in subordinate offices can also be made eligible for accommodation under specific orders of the Government subject to the fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein. After pointing out these provisions, the U.O. Further states that there are 14,604 Government-owned houses available with the Estate Office at Islamabad and are occupied by the Government servants and there is a waiting list of 32,125 servants. In view of non- availability of Government accommodation and shortage of funds for hiring residential accommodation as per the U.O., it was not possible to make further departments entitled to allotment of houses from Estate Office Pool.
3. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it seems necessary to first dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the respondents - tontended that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution and the present case is not covered by the said provision. The scope and object of Article 184 (3) has been comprehensively discussed in several judgments of this Court including Ms. Benazir Bhutto's case (PLD 1988 SC 416) and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif s case (PLD 1993 SC 473). It is now well-settled that if there is violation of fundamental rights of a class of persons who collectively suffer due to such breach and there does not seem to be any possible relief being granted from any quarter due to their inability to seek or obtain relief, they are entitled to file petition under Article 184 (3). The dispute should not be mere an individual grievance, but a collective grievance which raises questions of general public importance. In Benazir Bhutto's case it was observed as follows:-- "The plain language of Article 184 (3) shows that it is open-ended. The Article does not say as to who shall have the right to move the Supreme Court nor does it say by what proceedings the Supreme Court may be so moved or whether it is confined to the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of an individual which are infracted or extends to the enforcement of the rights of a group or a class of persons whose rights are violated."
' It was further observed that "the inquiry into law and life cannot, in my view, be confined to the narrow limits of the rule of law in the context of constitutionalism which makes a greater demand on judicial functions. Therefore, while construing Article 184 (3), the interpretative approach should not be ceremonious observance of the rules or usages of interpretation, but regard should be had to the object and the purpose for which this Article is enacted, that is, this interpretative approach must receive inspiration from the triad of provisions which saturate and invigorate the entire Constitution, namely the Objectives Resolution (Article 2A), the Fundamental Rights and the directive principles of State Policy so as to achieve democracy, tolerance, equality and social justice according to Islam". While further dilating upon the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles 3, 37 and 38 of the Constitution, which enshrine socio-economic principles, it was observed that "these provisions become in an indirect sense enforceable by law and thus, bring about a phenomenal change in the idea of co-relation of Fundamental Rights and directive principles of State Policy". In this background it was observed as follows:-- "The liberties, in this context, if purposefully defined will serve to guarantee genuine freedom; freedom not only from arbitrary restraint of authority, but also freedom from want, from proverty and destitution and from ignorance and illiteracy. That this was the purport of the role of the rule of law which was affirmed at Lagos in 1961 in the World Peace Through Law Conference: `Adequate levels of living are essential for full enjoyment of individual's freedom and rights. What is the use of freedom of speech to under-nourished people or of the freedom of Press to an illiterate population. The rule of law must make for the establishing of social, econominc and cultural conditions which promote men to live in dignity and to live with aspirations.'
' The Court will be in a position, if the procedure is flexible, to extend the benefits of socio-economic change through this medium of interpretation to all sections of the citizens.
' This approach is in tune with the era of progress and is meant to establish that the Constitution is not merely an imprisonment of the past, but is also alive to the unfolding of the future. It would thus, be futile to insist on ceremonious interpretative approach to Constitutional interpretations as hitherto undertaken which only served to limit the controversies between the State and the individual without extending the benefits of the liberties and the Principles of Policy to all the segments of the population."
' It is thus clear that Article 9 of the Constitution which guarantees life and liberty according to law is not to be construed in a restricted and pedantic manner. Life has a larger concept which includes the right of enjoyment of life, maintaining adequate level of living for full enjoyment of freedom and rights. In this background the petitioners' claim to be provided accommodation during tenure of service, which is necessary for maintaining adequate level of living, in our opinion, is covered by Article 9. It is true that the terms and conditions of service perhaps do not require the respondents to provide residential accommodation to the petitioners, but if other Government servants similarly placed are being provided accommodation there is no reason to deprive the petitioners from such relief. In this view of the matter petition under Article 184(3) is competent.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents next contended that the petitioners are not Government servants and are not entitled to accommodation as claimed by them. The stand taken by the respondents is that the Pakistan Law Commission is an autonomous body and therefore the persons employed in its Secretariat are not Government servants. This objection is completely misconceived. No doubt the Commission has been constituted under an Ordinance, but it does not make it an autonomous organisation. It may have independence in pursuing its acts and policies but the persons working in the Secretariat of the Commission are Government servants. In this regard the petitioners have referred to documents that they have been treated to be under the Ministry of Law. They are drawing their salary through the Ministry of Law, which is the administrative Ministry for the purposes of Law Commission and its Secretariat. It has further been pointed out that in the list of autonomous/semi-autonomous Corporations/ Organisations of the Federal Government issued by the Public Administration Research Centre, 0 and M Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, 1982, the name of Pakistan Law Commission has not been included in it. Furthermore, when this question arose, the Law Ministry has given its opinion on 1-9- 1981 in an O.M. Addressed to the Estate Officer (E.O.), Islamabad, in which it was stated as follows:-- "It may be added that the Law Commission was constituted under the Law Commission Ordinance, 1979 (XIV of 1979). It is a purely Government Organization and the members of its staff are Federal Government servants like other servants of the various Ministries."
' After referring to section 5 of the Ordinance and Article 87 of the Constitution, it was stated:-- "As such the Law Commission has a separate Secretariat like the National Assembly and the Senate. Accordingly, the employees (officers and officials) of the Law Commission are as good employees of the Federal Government as are the employees of the National Assembly and the Senate. In fact section 5 of the said Ordinance is more clear because it provides that the said Secretariate is to be headed by an officer of the Federal Government. What it means is that it will be an officer of the Federal Government who will be head of the other officers and staff of the Law Commission just because such officers and staff are to be employees of the Federal Government.
The Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs is the administrative Ministry for the purposes of the Law Commission and the Secretariat of the Law Commission is a part and parcel of our j Ministry.
The Law Commission as such is a Secretariat of the Federal Government and is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. It is neither an autonomous body nor a subordinate department and as already said it is a Federal Government department of the status of the Secretariat under the administrative control of this Ministry."
' Finally the opinion concluded that the petitioners are entitled to allotment of Government owned or Government requisitioned houses as are other employees of the Federal Government, the National Assembly or the Senate. Now having established that the employees of the Secretariat of the Law Commission are Government servants, question arises whether they are entitled to allotment of accommodation under the relevant provisions of law. In this regard reference has been made to Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1971, as amended up-to-date. Rule 3 prescribes eligibility according to which all Central Government servants employed in the Ministries/Divisions and attached departments of the Government of Pakistan shall be eligible for accommodation. The petitioners are thus entitled and eligible for allotment of Government accommodation under the Rules. The Government employees of similar position and status are admittedly being provided with Government accommodation, therefore, to deny such facility to the petitioners, would not only be illegal, but would be discriminatory in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution. There is no reasonable classification to debar the petitioners from seeking Government accommodAion like other Government servants. All persons in the same status, position and conditions are to be treated a like according to law. Any discrimination not justified by law would be in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The refusal of the respondents is, therefore, hit by the provisions of Article 25, as on no reasonable legal ground they can discriminate the petitioners and refuse to provide them accommodation in the same manner under the Rules as they are providing to other Government servants. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to provide accommodation to the petitioners as provided by the Rules applicable to other Government servants.