The petitioner, Dr. Robina Sharif, Demonstrator, Allama lqbal Medical College, Lahore has instituted this petition before this Court against the respondents, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and Mrs. Nasim Khan, Associate Professor in Government APWA College, Lahore thereby challenging the validity of order dated 7-2-1994 already passed by this Court in W.P. 5212/92 allotting the house in GOR-V, Lahore to the contesting respondent. It is also prayed that the subsequent allotment of the said house to the petitioner maybe upheld.
2. In the first round of litigation, Mrs. Nasim Khan instituted W.P. No. 5212/92 against the Province 'of the Punjab through Chief Secretary praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to allot her a house keeping in view her status in the service. Notice in the writ petition was issued to the respondents. On 7-2-1994, Mr. Irfan Qadir, learned Addl. Advocate-- General and Syed Waseem Raza Jafferi, Estate Officer appeared on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Law Officer, the following order was passed:--- "Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Irfan Qadir, Addl. Advocate-General with Syed Waseem Raza Jafferi, Estate Officer.
The petitioner, Mrs. Naseem Khan, Associate Professor in Government APWA College applied for allotment of Government accommodation on 7-3-75 while she was performing her duties in BS-17.
On 17-4-1979, a letter was sent to the petitioner by the respondent that no accommodation was available for its allotment to her and that she should wait for her turn in this behalf. On 28-3-1991, the petitioner was given BS-19. She moved another application for allotment of a house but despite that no house was allotted to her. This Constitutional petition has been moved by the learned counsel for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to allot an available house to the petitioner. This petition was admitted to regular hearing by this Court on 14- 11-1992.
2. At this stage, Mr. Irfan Qadir, learned Additional Advocate-General has appeared alongwith Mr. Waseem Raza Jafferi, Estate Officer to make a statement before the Court that House No.186 A, GLR-V, Lahore which is reserved for- Officer of BS-19 grade has been allotted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the statement having been made by the learned Law Officer on the controversy. The possession of the aforementioned house shall be given to the petitioner, the allottee within next one month without fail. With this observation, this petition is disposed of as having been fructified."
3. Thereafter, C.M. No.479/1994 was instituted by the learned Law Officer in which notice was issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 26-2-1994. On 1-3-1994, the above-noted application was disposed of with the following short order:--- "Mr. Irfan Qadir, Addl. A.-G. With the State Officer.
Vacant possession of the house in question shall now be given to the writ petitioner on 2-4-1994.
With this observation, C.M. No.479/94 stands disposed of."
1980 SCMR 509, Zarar Khan v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1980 SC 310 and Mst. Kishwar Sultan Jehan Begum v. Aslam Awais and 3 others PLD 1976 Lah. 580.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also read the entire record with their assistance. I hold the view that on 7-2-1994, after hearing the learned counsel, a final and effective order was passed by this Court in favour of the contesting respondent and as such the property in dispute was no more available for its re-allotment to the petitioner. It may be re-called that the learned Additional Advocate-General appeared alongwith Mr. Waseem Raza Jafferi, Estate Officer and stated that the house in dispute had already been allotted to Mrs. Nasim Khan by the competent authority and that vacant possession would be given to her in due course of time. On the basis of said statement, order dated 2-7-1993, reproduced above, was passed by this Court. On 1-3-1994, on the application of the respondent --functionary, the period for handing over the vacant possession of the house to the contesting respondent was extended till 2-4-1994 at the request of the learned Law Officer. The learned Law Officer and the Estate Officer clearly stated on behalf of the Province of Punjab that the house had been allotted to the respondent. The respondent, Province of Punjab is, therefore, bound by a statement of their Law Officer which was, in fact, made on its instructions not once but twice. The writ petitioner fully knew that the litigation in respect of this house was pending decision in the High Court and as such she could become a party in those proceedings. Nevertheless, for her benefit, time for vacation of the house was extended by this Court. She was, thus, satisfied with the extension of time alone. This being so, the allotment of the house in favour of Mrs. Nasim Khan was upheld by this Court for all intents and purposes vide order dated 2-7-1993. It would, therefore, be evident that the house in question was no more a part of the pool of available houses at the time when it was re-allotted to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, it could not be allotted to anybody else under the law for, the simple reason that it was not lying un-allotted. It may also be seen that the said order was not challenged before any competent forum by the writ petitioner knowing that it related to the house which was in her occupation. For all intents and purposes, the order became final between the parties.
According to the learned counsel for the parties, the procedure for allotment of houses to Government servants as contained in Letter No.3E0-5-22/64, Government of West Pakistan, Services and General Administration Department (Estate Office) shall apply. The said letter is hereby reproduced:---
(a) Allotments of Government residences will be made on the principle of first come first served.
The priority will be based on the date of receipt of application in the Estate Office.
(b) None will be allowed the allotment of a residence below or above his category (except bachelors).
(c) Bachelors are normally not entitled to family accommodation, they will be eligible for single accommodation.
(d) A Government servant -once allotted a house will not subsequently be considered for allotment of a house of higher category even if he becomes eligible for it on account of promotion, etc. The same principle will apply to an officer having one allotment and asking for a better house in the same category.
(e) Secretaries to Government, Members, Board of Revenue, Judges of the High Court of West Pakistan, the Chairman, Public Service Commission and the Members of the Secretariat Staff, in the matter of allotment will have first priority, within their respective categories and Heads of Attached Departments and Regional Heads of Offices will have second priority.
(f) There will be no fresh earmarking of houses by designation, the houses already stand earmarked will not be disturbed.
(g) A Government servant proceeding on training/duty abroad will be allowed to retain the official residence during " the period of training/duty if he leaves his wife and children and continues to pay the rent regularly.
(h) A Government servant on transfer out of Lahore will normally be required to vacate the official residence forthwith. But in very hard cases when no house is available at the station of his posting, he can on his application, be allowed to retain the residence on compassionate grounds for a maximum period of three months provided his wife and children are living there and he continues to pay rent regularly.
(i) A Government servant consequent upon proceeding on leave preparatory to retirement, ceases to be officially stationed at the place of his last posting and is free to move to any place of his choice. In such cases a Government servant should invariably vacate the official residence in his possession within a period of one month from the date of his proceeding on leave preparatory to retirement or from the date of retirement, whichever is earlier."
The basic principle for allotment of Government residence is "first come first served". Admittedly, the respondent applied for allotment of house in 1975. She is also senior to the petitioner in service inasmuch as the respondent is a Grade-19 officer while the writ petitioner is just a beginner and is working in Grade-17. Her husband is a Member of D.M.G. And as such as. Transferred and posted as Deputy Commissioner; Bhakkar. Apart from the above, nevertheless, the writ petitioner is entitled to the allotment of a house in her own category. She may be accommodated by giving , her a house keeping in view her entitlement in this behalf. This writ petition is also misconceived inasmuch as no writ could 'issue against an order of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It appears that background of the case was not brought to the notice of allotting authority. The order dated 2- 7-1993 shall have to be treated as final between the parties and that in presence of the said order, no other valid order could be passed by the respondent-functionary. This being so, there is no alternative but to ignore the order dated 26-3-1994 being without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. In the result, the order dated 2-7-1993 would hold the field and that it had to be acted upon m letter and spirit by the respondent-functionary. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.