' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER)---The appellant was appointed as an Assistant in the Ministry of Education with effect from 20th July, 1973. He was posted abroad as Assistant vide order dated 1-7- 1992. The appellant in compliance with the office order proceeded along with his family members to Tehran on 21-7-1992. As per terms and conditions of his posting order, he was to be provided free furnished Government accommodation at Tehran. On his arrival artehran, he stayed in the Hotel initially for six days to avail of the joining time i,e,. With effect from 21st to 26th July, 1992.
2. Due to the deplorable condition of the house, his predecessor was residing in, he did not occupy the house. As a result he had to stay in a Hotel with effect from 21st July to 7th August, 1992, till he got the suitable accommodation. As a consequence, the appellant felt that he was entitled to the grant of Daily Allowance for the period that he over stayed in the hotel i,e,. For 12 days till he got the official free furnished accommodation, under rules on the subject at Serial No,47 of (Guidance of Missions Abroad) Vol-II,
86. He, therefore, submitted his claim duly supported by the necessary documents for the grant of 18 days daily allowance (including six days of joining period) for staying in the Hotel under the circumstances. According to the appellant, his claim amounting to US $ 17,604 was approved by Dy. H.M/CDA on 9-9-1992. However, it was not paid to the appellant on one or the other pretext. During the process of the case, however, according to him, he was compelled to claim for Hotel room rent for reimbursement for 12 days vide letter dated 9-12-1992. According to the appellant, during his stay in the Hotel he did not claim the Foreign Allowance. On reaching the home station in Pakistan, the appellant made an application, dated 27th November, 1995, to the Secretary Education for the payment of 12 days Daily Allowance for the period he stayed in the hotel beyond his joining period of six days. However, his appeal/representation was turned down on 26-12-1995, without assigning any reasons.
3. Hence this appeal.
4. Pleading the case of the appellant, the learned counsel submitted that under the foreign posting Rules, when a Government servant is unable to find suitable residential accommodation immediately on his arrival at a new post, he would be entitled to draw a daily allowance in lieu of foreign allowance and house rent allowance for himself, and his family. As such the appellant was entitled to the daily allowance for the period he stayed in Hotel beyond the joining period to normal daily allowance as he was not provided suitable accommodation at his arrival. He further submitted that when the appellant visited the house, vacated by his predecessor, the landlady present at that time, did not allow him to occupy the said accommodation. Besides this the said house was in a very deteriorated, dilapidated and unhygenic condition not suitable to occupy. The appellant apprised the authorities of the position of the house, therefore, he was advised to occupy the Hotel till some suitable house was found for him. As, such under the rules, he was entitled to the daily allowance for the period he overstayed in the Hotel.
5. The respondent-department has also filed their preliminary objections whereby the appeal has been vehemently resisted. It has been contended that prior to the posting of the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Azam his predecessor was working there as Assistant and was residing in the said house along with his family members and there had been no complaints whatsoever from him about the house. It was not understood as to how the said house suddenly became completely inhabitable and unhygenic on the arrival of the appellant. It has been pointed out that the house was leased by the Embassy and rent was also not outstanding against the Mission. It was not understood how the landlady refused the appellant to enter the house. Since it was a leased house, therefore, ascertaining the possibility of shifting in it of the appellant was neither necessary nor required. Leasing of the houses of the government is just to facilitate the incoming official with regard to their residential accommodation on one hand and to save the public money on the other. The rent of the leased houses is always paid in advance. The statement of the appellant that in compliance with the orders of the Mission he approached the landlady but was refused is not understood.
6. We have heard both the parties at length and also perused the documents.
7. We find the main issue before us to examine is whether or not the appellant was entitled to the daily allowance under the rules for the period he spent in Hotel beyond the joining period on the plea that the house vacated by his predecessor was not suitable and, therefore, till the suitable accommodation was provided to him, he was to stay in the Hotel.
8. We were taken to the Embassy's letter, dated 4th March, 1996, in which the Embassy had apprised the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the matter that by the time Mr. Anwar joined this Embassy, the situation with regard to availability of accommodation in Tehran had improved significantly. As an economy measure and to curb the general tendency on the part of the officials concerned to stay in Hotels deliberately in order to get additional D.A., the Embassy, in public interest had decided, as a matter of Policy, not to pay D.A. Beyond six days joining time to any official, under any circumstances, and instead pay, only the room rent of the Hotel as admissible under the rules. Incidentally, the appellant was among the first few officials who came under the purview of the above general decision.
9. We find that this action of the Embassy was in consonance with a d.o. Letter written by Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan D.G. (F.A.) to all Embassies on 5-11-1981, in which it was clarified that the provision of accommodation is the responsibility of the Mission and the direct responsibility of the heads of Mission whose decision in each case is final. Should an official refuse to accept the accommodation arranged by the head of Mission, the requirement of providing official accommodation having been met, the consequences must be faced by the official himself including disciplinary action for defying official orders. This policy decision was made in view of the misuse of the daily allowance facility, when the suitable accommodation could not be made instantaneously as has been explained in the said d.o. Letter. It is an admitted fact that the official was provided accommodation but he did not occupy it on the ground that it was in deplorable condition, although his predecessor did not point out any defect prior to the appellant. As a consequence he was allowed to live in the hotel on refusal of the accepting the accommodation already available at that time. The Hotel charges were also paid by the Mission. This action on the part of the Mission was in accordance with policy decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and he was rightly not allowed daily allowance in question.
10. The perusal of the documents further shows although he made a request to the Mission authority to pay him 12 days additional daily allowance for overstaying in the Hotel due to non- availability of the suitable accommodation nevertheless his request was not acceded to and he was informed in August, 1992. Had the appellant any grievance against this refusal, he should have approached the Secretary Education within a period of thirty days as required under the law or he should have approached the Tribunal in this regard. However, he remained silent till his arrival back in Pakistan that he made representation to the Secretary Education which was turned down vide a letter, dated 10th April, 1996. In fact his cause to agitate arose in 1992. Now it has become time- barred.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal having no merit and subsequently being time- barred is dismissed on both the accounts with no order as to costs.
12. Parties be informed.