' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Petitioner Mansoorul Haq Solangi seeks leave to appeal 'against the judgment, dated 31-9-2002 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Constitution Petition No,518 of 2002 filed by him was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, are that the petitioner was employed in West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred as the W.P.I.D.C.) in the year 1970, and was confirmed in the service in the year 1971 and was deputed to serve in Pakistan Automobile Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'PACO') with effect from 30-6-1986. Both the Corporations worked under, Ministry of Industries and Productions, Government of Pakistan, as such, the service of their employees were inter transferable.
3. While serving in PACO, the petitioner was deputed to Naya Daur Motors Limited one of its units and-at that time tripartite agreement was executed in between him, Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the P.I.D.C."), and Naya Daur Motors whereby he was allotted Flat No,24 in P.I.D.C. Officers Flats, on occupation charges of Rs,3,500 per month on the terms and conditions that the same shall be deducted from his salary by Messrs Naya Daur Motors and would be paid to the P.I.D.C.
4. The petitioner continued paying the above mentioned charges to P.I.D.C. From his salary from Naya Daur Motors, a unit of PACO. However, Naya Daur Motors was privatized in January, 1993 and petitioner was not repatriated by P.A.C.O. To P.I.D.C. His parent department and continued his employment with Naya Daur Motors up to 26-9-1995 when his services were terminated. The petitioner even thereafter continued paying the above mentioned occupancy charges to P.I.D.C. Up to February, 1996 by sending pay order.
5. However, the petitioner challenged his dismissal before the learned High Court at Karachi vide.
Constitution Petition No,D-646 of 1995 but after insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the aforesaid petition abated, as such, he filed service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was accepted and he was declared as permanent civil servant with lien of service and Chairman, PACO was directed to reinstate him with all back benefits. However, PACO assailed the said judgment in C.P.L.A. No,566-K of 2000 before this Court in which leave to appeal was granted and the operation of the order of Service Tribunal was suspended.
6. Pending the above matter, respondent No,1 P.I.D.C. Filed ejectment petition against the petitioner in the Court of IInd Rent Controller and Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, as Rent Case No,1795 of 1996 which was allowed on 31-3-1998. The petitioner assailed the said judgment before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi vide F.R.A. No,275 of 1998 which was transferred to the learned District Judge, Karchi South from where it was transferred to IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi South which was also dismissed and the said order was challenged in the aforesaid Constitution petition before the High Court of Sindh which culminated in the impugned judgment.
7. We have heard Mr. S. Shahanshah Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Khalilur Rehman learned Advocate-on-Record for respondent No,1 and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
8. Mr. S. Shahanshah Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court mainly contended that the impugned order is bad in law and cannot be acted upon, as the petitioner was declared as a permanent civil servant with valid line of service and was reinstated into service by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, declaring him as an employee of PACO a sister organization of P.I.D.C., working under Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan. He emphasized that it was in accordance with a tripartite agreement, referred above, the petitioner was allotted a Flat in P.I.D.C. Officers Flat on occupation charges of Rs,3,500 per month which were being deducted from his salary from Naya Daur Motors and being paid to respondent No,1 P.I.D.C. Till February, 1.996.
Since the petitioner was dismissed from service in 1995 as such was not in a position to deposit the above occupancy charges as he ceased to receive salary but continued agitating his right by challenging the order of dismissal and ultimately succeeded in his reinstatement. Learned counsel vehemently attacked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller while urging that he had no jurisdiction in the matter as there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and P.I.D.C.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents mainly relied upon Rule 13 of the Allotment of Accommodation to Officers at Karachi, pertaining to P.I.D.C. And contended that by virtue of which the accommodation of the petitioner was liable to be vacated within two months of his dismissal from service. According to him, the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as (the Ordinance) would be applicable in this case as after dismissal from service, the petitioner neither remained civil servant nor he deposited the arrears of rent as well as the future monthly rent alongwith the electricity and gas charges within 15 days of order, dated 28- 9-2000 passed in above referred F.R.A. No,275 of 1998 by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, under section 16 of the Ordinance.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Stock Verifier in the W.P.I.D.C. And was confirmed in service in January, 1971 and was promoted as Assistant Manager in February, 1974 and Deputy Manager in June, 1980 and on 30-6-1986 he was sent on deputation to PACO where he joined as Senior Manager Marketing and Sale on 30-6-1986. However, P.I.D.C. Terminated his lien stating that his lien will be maintained in the PACO from the date of joining and such proposal was accepted by PACO vide letter, dated 23-6-1986. The learned Tribunal also while reinstating the petitioner into service, held his lien with PACO as valid and reinstated him with all back benefits. The services of the petitioner were transferred by PACO to Messrs Naya Daur Motors, as such, as per agreement, the above occupancy charges were being deducted from his salary by Naya Daur Motors and sent to P.I.D.C. In lieu of occupancy charges of the flat in question. In such circumstances, the default in payment of the above mentioned occupancy charges, would be only technical in nature. So far as the provisions of the Ordinance are concerned, the same would be applicable in the instant matter as P.I.D.C. Is an autonomous body and can maintain a petition for ejectment under the Ordinance and is not hit by subsection (1) of section 3 of the Ordinance.
11. The petitioner present in person, at the very outset stated that sufficient amount in the shape of G.P. Fund etc. Is outstanding against the respondent which can be adjusted towards the above mentioned dues outstanding against him.
12. In fact the case of petitioner falls within the ambit of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 13, of the Allotment Accommodation to Officers at Karachi, wherein it is provided that if an Officer who is dismissed, discharged or removed from service prefers an appeal or petition against the order of dismissal, discharge or removal, he may be allowed to retain his accommodation pending decision on his appeal or petition.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner has been agitating his removal from the very beginning while agitating the remedies before proper forums and was ultimately reinstated in service with all back benefits by the Tribunal which order is still sub judice before this Court in Civil Petition No, 566-K of 2000 in which leave has been granted.
14. For what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment suffers from legal infirmity and is not sustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.
15. Resultantly, the petition is converted into appeal and allowed with no order as to costs.