' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of this appeal are that the appellant Mahr Muhammad Shoaib was appointed as L.D.C. (B-5) in the Establishment Division with effect from 30- 4-1995. He is occupying Quarter No,168-D, G-6/4, Islamabad which was originally allotted to his father, Mr. Muhammad Farooq Khan, who retired as Section Officer, with effect from 31st March, 1994. The appellant had been requesting from time to time for allotment of the said quarter which was occupied by his father, but the Estate Office allotted him Quarter No,78/15-B, C-9/2, Islamabad according to his entitlement and he was asked to vacate the said quarter. Being aggrieved he filed departmental appeal and could not succeed but was allowed to retain the quarter till alternate accommodation is allotted and finally he filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 19-3-1996 with the prayer to direct Estate office to allot him Quarter No,168-D, G-6/4, which is in his possession on compassionate grounds and on the analogy of similar cases in which Government servants have been allotted accommodation of higher categories. Along with the appeal, he has also filed Miscellaneous Application No,37/96 for status quo.
2. The appeal and miscellaneous application for status quo came up for preliminary hearing on 20-3-1996 when pre-admission notice was issued to Estate Office, Islamabad for comments.
Pursuant to notice, the Estate Office filed comments and copy thereof was handed over to the appellant and the matter was fixed for 7-4-1996.
3. The appellant was heard at length. It is argued that in so many cases, allotments of higher category have been made to the Government servants and since he is in occupation of Quarter No,168-D, G-6/4, therefore, the said Quarter No,78/15-B, G-9/2, Islamabad, which was allotted to him, had not been handed over to him. On the other hand, Mr. Sabir Ali, Joint Estate Officer submitted that father of the appellant is in occupation of Quarter No,168-D, G-6/4, since 1994 though, under the rules, he could retain the premises after retirement, not more than six months, and standard rent is also not being paid. It is submitted that the appellant was allotted a house according to his own entitlement and possession was given to him, therefore, he cannot retain two houses at one time under any rule.
4. The above facts to the extent of allotment of 'B' type house are admitted by the appellant but he has stated that possession of the said house was not given. On the contrary, the Estate Office has stated that possession of House No,78/15-B, G-9/2, Islamabad was given to the appellant on 15-2- 1996, and the appellant has duly signed such document in token of possession of the said quarter.
To ascertain the correctness of fact, we deputed the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal, accompanied by the appellant and the representative of the Estate Office. Deputy Registrar submitted his report stating therein that the Quarter No,78/15-B, G-9/2, was locked and there was variation in the signature of the appellant recorded in the occupation report and the register, In view of this controversy, the Tribunal gave option to the appellant whether he is prepared to take possession of Quarter No,78/15-B, G-9/2, to which he flatly refused to occupy the house in spite of the fact that it was already allotted to him. Under the Pakistan Allocation Rules of 1993, the appellant is entitled to Government accommodation of a category house, and he was not entitled to have retained a D' type house, which was previously allotted to his father who was Section Officer and had since retired from service. The appellant has also argued that he made application to the Minister for Housing and Works to allot him out of turn house, which is under process and submitted that directions be issued to the Estate Office to implement the orders of the Minister. We are sorry we cannot issue such directions for implementation of the orders of the Minister. We can only deal with the matters of civil servants under four corners of Act and Rules regarding terms and conditions of their service. Who are of the view that the appellant has got no vested right to retain a ' D' type house which was previously allotted to his father, which is two steps higher category house, as he is entitled to a 'B' type house. The Estate office has allotted him alternate accommodation according to his entitlement and no injustice has been done to him. The appeal is misconceived and so also the stay application, and both are dismissed in limine.