' The facts giving rise to the instant Constitutional petition are that the petitioner is a Federal Government servant of Accounts Group in Basic Pay Scale 20. In April 1990 the petitioner was posted in the Capital Development Authority as member (Finance) and accordingly in March, 1991, the petitioner was allotted House No,14 Street No,63 Sector F-7/3, Islamabad for his residence. On 19-9-1994 the petitioner was repatriated back to his parent department i,e, Office of the Auditor- General of Pakistan and from there, on 1st of March, 1995 the petitioner was transferred to Privatization Commission as a Joint Secretary which position he continues to hold even today.
2. That upon the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department in 1994 as aforesaid, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the house allotted to him by the Capital Development Authority while he was in its employment on the ground that on his repatriation to his parent department and ceasing to be in the employment of C.D.A., he had no right to retain the house which was needed by the authority for its own officers.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was no longer in the service of the C.D.A. And had no right or justification to continue to occupy the house allotted to him by the C.D.A., the petitioner questioned the demand of the C.D.A. To have the house vacated from the petitioner through a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The said suit was, however, dismissed on 16-3-1995 as being legally incompetent.
4. On the dismissal of his suit as aforesaid by the Civil Judge, Islamabad, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Islamabad which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad on 21-2-1996.
5. That on the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, petitioner instituted a Civil Revision being Civil Revision No,160 of 1995 in the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahre High Court. He, however, unconditionally withdrew the said Civil Revision on the ground that a summary having been submitted by the Privatization Commission to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the latter had allowed him to stay in the house in occupation. The Prime Minister of Pakistan, however, withdrew the earlier instructions whereby the petitioner was allowed to stay in the house in question whereupon the petitioner was called upon once again to vacate the house in his occupation. Instead of vacating the house and delivering the possession to the Capital Development Authority, the petitioner instituted the instant Constitutional petition on 4-2- 1997.
6. Mr. Sarmad Osmany, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of the Constitutional petition has raised the following contentions:
(i) that under sub-rule (12) of rule 16 of the Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993 the petitioner is entitled to retain the house in his occupation till such time he is allotted an alternative accommodation and that the forcible vacation of the petitioner from the accommodation in his occupation is violate of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution;
(ii) that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had as a special case allowed the petitioner to stay in the occupation of the house in question and that the C.D.A. Could not override the orders passed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan;
(iii) that the petitioner was living in the house in question with his family and he could not be expected to be thrown on the road without the provision of an alternative accommodation by the Government.
7. Sardar Muhammad Aslam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Capital Development Authority repudiated the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and raised the following contentions:
(i) that on being required to vacate the house in his occupation by the C.D.A. The petitioner had instituted a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The said suit was dismissed by the said Court as being legally incompetent. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the learned Civil judge also met the same fate. The Civil Revision instituted by the petitioner against the decision of the learned District Judge, Islamabad was withdrawn by him unconditionally. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, dismissing the petitioner's suit attained finality. After the dismissal of his suit and the appeal, petitioner could not start a fresh round of litigation. The earlier decision of the Civil Court would bar the instant Constitutional petition by way of res judicata;
(ii) that the Pakistan Allocation Rules on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The said Rules apply to Government accommodation allotted to a Government servant by the Government. Admittedly the house in question which is occupied by the petitioner is not a Government accommodation nor had the same been allotted to him by the Government;
(iii) that for the sake of arguments that the Pakistan Allocation Rules are applicable to the petitioner's case, the same cannot be enforced against the respondent-authority being non- statutory;
(iv) that keeping in view that conduct of the petitioner he is not entitled to any concession or direction. Precise submission of the learned counsel for the authority was that the petitioner is staying in the - premises without paying any rent to the authority and that in this view of the matter, he is not entitled to any indulgence.
8. I have considered and evaluated the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. On being required to vacate the house, the petitioner questioned the legality of the action of the Capital Development Authority before the learned Civil Court through a civil suit. The said suit was admittedly dismissed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal of the suit met the same fate. The petitioner no doubt approached the High Court by filing a Civil Revision against the decision of the learned District Judge, Islamabad, but subsequently he unconditionally withdrew the said Civil Revision. Thus, the final decision of the Appellate Court i,e, Additional District Judge, Islamabad was left in the field unquestioned and the same attained finality. After having failed in the said first round of litigation the petitioner could not be permitted to turn around and start a fresh round of litigation. The earlier decision shall bar the instant Constitutional petition on the principle of res judicata as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment reported as Muhammad Chiragh-ud-Din Bhatti v. The Province of West Pakistan and 2 others (1971 SCMR page 447). Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993 for the purpose of the petitioner's case is misconceived. The said rules have been framed by the Federal government for. The purpose of allotment of houses placed in the Government pool under the control of the Estate Office.
Admittedly, the house in question is not a Government accommodation and belongs to the Capital Development Authority. It was given to the petitioner by the authority and not by the Estate Office or for that matter, Ministry of Housing and Works. Having been given to the petitioner while he was in the employment of C.D.A. As Member (Finance) the authority had a right to call upon the petitioner to vacate the said house when the petitioner was no longer in the employment of the authority. The petitioner could not take refuge being the Pakistan Allocation Rules and refuse to deliver the possession of the house. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court. But the conduct of the petitioner is such as wholly disentitles him, to any indulgence. He is a very Senior Civil Surgeon and by now should be thoroughly conversant with his rights and obligations. He has been in occupation of the house since 1994, ever since his transfer from the C.D.A. He has not paid the rent of the house in his occupation to the Capital Development Authority. Staying in the house without paying the rent is like travelling without a ticket. With his conduct such as this, the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence or concession. He has on one pretext or the other managed to stay in the house from 1994 to 1998 although he ceased to be in the service of the C.D.A. In 1994.
9. There is no force in the instant Constitutional petition which is legally incompetent being barred by the earlier decision of the Civil Court as also misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limine. In view of the fact that the petitioner is living in the house with his family he is allowed one month's period from, the date of the announcement of this order to vacate the house.