' In this. Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that the threatened action of the respondents to dispossess him from House No, 8, Club Road, G.O.R.-I, Lahore and notices dated 4-3-1996 and 8-5-1996 (Annexures C and D) are without any lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts forming the background of this Constitutional petition relevant for its disposal shortly stated are that the petitioner who was senior member of Police Service of Pakistan in the' rank of Inspector-General of Police was appointed as Inspector-General of Police Punjab. As Inspector- General of Punjab he was under the administrative control of the Punjab Government being in the service of the Province and was allotted Government accommodation in GOR-I, Lahore. Admittedly he has been now posted as Managing Director, Government of Pakistan which is a Federal Government Organization, as such, he has become Federal Government employee.
3. According to respondent No, 1 he could not enjoy the facility of a house owned by the Provincial Government any more as he was no more its employee and under its administrative control, therefore, he was issued notices to vacate the house in question allotted to him while he was serving as its employee. He contested the legality of the said notices issued by the respondents by filing reply but he has been now intimated through the impugned notices that his right of easement to occupy the said house stood revoked under section 4 of the West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966, the legality of which decision has been challenged in this Constitutional petition.
4. During the pendency of this petition on one of the dates of hearing the petitioner complained that other Federal Government employees now serving in the Federal Government had been allowed to retain the houses owned by the Provincial Government, therefore, the petitioner had been discriminated. I passed an order directing the respondents to submit list of such officers of the Federal Government who were occupying houses owned by the Provincial Government in GOR- I or elsewhere. A list has been submitted. Learned Advocate-General when questioned as to how as against those Federal Government employees the petitioner could be discriminated, who though employees of the Federal Government are being allowed to enjoy easement rights of possession of the Provincial Government houses in GOR-I, etc. Says that the Provincial Government does not in fact want to discriminate and a similar action would be taken against all of them without any discrimination and further submitted that no complaint could be made as regards discrimination based on principle of equality before law, in relation to acts or treatments which are against law and not based on any right granted by law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allotment and right to occupy allotted Government accommodation by a civil servant is governed by the Civil Service Rules (Punjab) framed by the Government of Punjab. He maintained that the petitioner since belongs to all Pakistan service which is common to Province and the Federal Government, therefore, his case was governed by Rule 5.45 of the said Rules under which he could retain the house as he has not been transferred out of the station i,e, Lahore where he was earlier posted as Provincial Government employee. Rule 5.45 reads as under:-- "Where a Government servant to whom a residence has been allotted dies or is dismissed or removed or if he resigns or retires from service or proceeds for training abroad or is transferred out of the station where the residence is located, he/his family, shall be entitled to retain it for the period specified below against each case."
' He emphasized that had the petitioner been transferred out of the station he could not retain the possession of the house beyond the period specified under this rule but since the petitioner has not been transferred out of the station, as such, he was entitled to retain the house as he was so entitled before his transfer.
6. I am afraid the argument in my view is wholly devoid of any force. The word "Government" as defined in rule 2.24 means the Punjab Government in the Administrative Department, therefore, apart from the fact that admittedly the house in question is owned by the Provincial Government and the rules have also been framed by the Provincial Government, according to this definition they are applicable to Provincial Government employees. This being so the expression "is transferred out of the station" used in this Rule would only mean that if an employee of the Provincial Government or any other employee while working in the Provincial Government is transferred out of station he would be governed by this Rule but the same would not be applicable to an employee of the Federal Government, may be the Department in which he had been posted by the Federal Government was located within the limits of the same station where he was working as Provincial Government employee. The petitioner having been appointed as Managing Director, Baitul-Mal, which is a Federal Government Department, as such, has become Federal Government employee, therefore, could not claim any right to occupy a house owned by the Provincial Government and the Provincial Government is under no legal obligation to provide him a house when he was no more serving as a Provincial Government employee. The matter becomes more clear from rule 1.2 which provides that the same would be applicable to the Government servants belonging to the following categories:--
(1) Members of Provincial Services;
(2) Members of Subordinate Services;
(3) Holders of Special Posts; and
(4) Any other Government servant or class Government servants to whom the competent Authority may, by general or special order, make them applicable.
' In this rule also the expression "Government servant" would mean a civil servant of the Province or a Federal Government employee for the time being serving under the administrative control of the Provincial Government.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned frankly admitted that the petitioner basically belongs to Central Superior Services and being in the police service was member of all Pakistan Service, as such, his services were placed with the Provincial Government and appointed as Inspector-General under the administrative control of the Provincial Government. This being so, after he was repatriated to the Federal Government and posted as Managing Director, Bait-ul-Mal, a Federal Government Department, therefore, he was no longer employee of the Provincial Government under its administrative control, therefore, in my view could not claim as a matter of right the allotment of residential accommodation owned by the Provincial Government.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 4 of the West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966, which has been referred to in one of the notices by the respondents, also provides that the license of a person who is in the service of Pakistan could be revoked only if he was transferred from the station in which he was employed to any other station and since the transfer of the petitioner as Managing Director, Bait-ul-Mal at Lahore is within the same station, therefore, he was entitled to retain the allotment and occupation of the house.
9. This argument is in fact similar to the one already raised and dealt with above which is attracted only if a member of service of Pakistan whose services had been placed under the administrative control of the Province and posted in a department of a Province while serving in such department of the Provincial Government is transferred from one office to another of the Province within the same station and not to a Federal Government employee who had been repatriated to the Federal Government to which he belonged and posted in an Organization of Department under the administrative control of such Government.
10. The petitioner in these circumstances is not entitled to retain the house owned by the Provincial Government and the latter is not under any obligation to provide him any house being Federal Government employee serving in an Organization of the Federal Government, as he ceased to be the employee within the contemplation of Civil Service Rules, therefore, the act of the respondents requiring him to vacate the house is not violate of any law or infringement of any right granted to him by any law, as such, the writ petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed in limine.
II. The petitioner requests that he may be given some time to vacate the house to manage alternative accommodation. He is granted one month time TO vacate the house. Respondent No, 1 is directed to take forthwith similar action against all those Federal Government servants who are occupying the houses of the Provincial Government and report compliance.