.>: CD
IN THE IfONORABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD
CR. No.dlL2016 Abdullah Khursheed Kiani son of Khursheed Ahmed Kiani resident of o Flat No.58/9-B, Sector 0-9/2 Islamabad
... Petitioner
. / ~:J Versus \___/ II'\; , ..
. ( I') . 1. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing [;:<:r:l:n,)[ and Works, Islamabad.
Copy ~>:P;.';~i ~~~~1.:U0:1
i:;;;;;:;'2::.~:.:~;.:~,:~'2:l;rMinistry of Housing and Works through Joint Estate Officer, Estate Office, Islamabad.
113. Capital Development. Authority, through its Chairman, CDA,
Islamabad
4. Civil Judge West Islamabad.
. .. Respondents
Respectfully Sheweth:
1. That the father of the petitioner has served in the Ministry of
Overseas Pakistani Islamabad as Stenographer (BS-14) and retried
from service w.e.f. 16-04-2015.
2. That the petitioner's father was allotted quarter Flat No.58/9-B,
Sector G-9/2 Islamabad and was a legal allottee of the government accommodation hereinafter called the "suit quarter".
3. That present petitioner is serving as Steno Typist (BPS-14) in
Capital Development Authority CDA, Islamabad appointed vide
Office Order No.CDA-7(O IHRD-III/20 14/9, dated 17-11-2014.
JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT C.R.No.214 of 2016
Abdullah Khursheed Kiani Versus
Federation of Pakistan, throuqh Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works and others
Date of Hearing: Petitioner by: Respondents by: '
21.04.2017 Mr. Amjad Afsar Gakhar, Advocate, Mian Muhammad Faisallrfan, Advocate, for respondent No.3/CDA, Mr. Ahsan Mehmood Sathi, Deputy Attorney-General and Ms. Sitwat Jahangir, Assistant Attorney- General, - . Mr. Yaseen Khan, UDC Estate Office.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant civil revision petition, the petitioner, Abdullah Khursheed Kiani,
who is employed as a Steno-Typist (BPS-14) in the Capital
Development Authority ("C.D.A."), impugns the judqrnerit dated • ·.··1·'
28.04.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Additional
District Judge, Islamabad, whereby the petitioner's appeal
against the order and decree dated 09.04.2016, passed by the
Court of the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad, was dismissed.
Vide the said order and decree dated 09.04.2016, the learned
Civil Court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P .C.").
2. The record shows that on 26.03.2015, the petitioner
instituted a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory
injunction against the Ministry of Housing & W?rks, the Joint
,,'~\00 'i.O be Tru.::, \~,~tate Officer, and the CDA, before the Court of the learned
.: .v / c'i0'il Judge, Islamabad. The petitioner's case was that Flat
~ .: ~'" -13 No.58/9.-B, Sector G-9/2, Islamabad, ("the suit accommodation")
) ': .' was allotted in the year 1981 to the petitioner's father, who had
;', ~':~~;~'~':.:<:" ': '<~er:yed in the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis', and had retired ~~'.:~~n~~rl.'~.~:"~:":. : . I ". '.'~ " .
-,' ';';!!.'\:':;<.,:~;> '''''from service with effect from 16.04.2015. The petitioner was
c::
appointed as a Steno Typist (BPS-14) in the COA, vide office,
order dated 17.11.2014. The petitioner submitted an application
to COA on 10.12.2014 for the a!lotment of government
2 C.R.No.214 of 2016
y
accommodation. The petitioner seeks the benefit of the proviso
to Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 (lithe
AAR, 2002"). Vide letter dated 18.04.2016, the COA informed
the Estate Office that the suit accommodation had been allotted
to the petitioner, and that the COA would have no objection for
the placement of the said accommodation in the pool of COA.
The Estate Officer was also informed that upon the retirement
of the petitioner, the suit accommodation would be returned to
the pool of the Estate Office.
3. Fearing eviction from the suit accommodation, the
petitioner on 26.03.2016, filed a suit for declaration, permanent
and mandatory injunction. Along with the said suit, the
petitioner filed an application for interim relief. Vide ad-interim
order dated 26.03.2016, the respondents were r-estrained from
dispossessing the petitioner from the suit accommodation. Vide
., order and decree dated 09.04.2016, the learned Civil Court
rejected the plaint. under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. It was inter alia held that' since the suit accommodation had not been
placed in the pool of COA, the petitioner was not entitled for the
allotment of the suit accommodation, which was in the pool of
the Estate Office. Furthermore, it was held that the petitioner,
who was an employee of the COA, could not claim benefit under
the proviso to Rule 15(2) of the AAR, 2002.
4. Against the said order dated 09.04~2016, the petitioner
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned
Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 28.04.2016. The \ to \Je Truo c.
,~APP'eliate Court concurred with the Vi~WS of the learned Civil
. ), p'l/ Jdourt, and held that the petitioner beinq an employee of the / J- COA was not entitled for the allotment of the suit
r- •..
CO~YJ l~.. accommodation, which was in the pool of the Estate Office. '. , ....
. •.... ·y .. i7.·~·:·· .:'. ':;~';~."~~·'·':\::':·::':,~>·,Bef6re the learned Appellate Court, respondent No.2 placed on
'.s \.;:.\1: '\.~~~~:y.:,~:;I.:. •
record letter dated 26.04.2016, according to which, the Estate
Office regretted the request of COA to place the suit
accommodation in the pool of COA. The said concurrent
judgments/orders of the learned Courts below have been
impugned by the petitioner in the instant civil revision petition.
3 C.R.No.214 of 2016
• r
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions in
reiteration of the petitioner's pleadings in his suit as well as the
instant petition. He further submitted that although the
petitioner is an employee of the COA, he is entitled to be
extended the benefit under the proviso to Rule 1'5(2) of the AAR,
2002; that the petitioner's father, who had retired from
government service on 16.04.2015 had been duly allotted the
suit accommodation; that the petitioner had been residing with
his father, and that the COA had already issued a no objection
certricate for the suit accommodation to be placed in the pool
of the COA; "that whenever, an accommodation of the same
category is available, it shall be given by the COA to the Estate
Office in exchange for the suit accommodation; that until such
an exchange takes place, the petitioner is entitled to remain in
occupation of the suit accommodation. . . __
-, 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the Estate Office
had placed House No.682-F, G-6/4, Islamabad, in COA's pool for allotment to a 'person ill the employment of the CDA, subject to an assurance of the placement of a house of the same category
in the pool of the Estate Office; and that the petitioner seeks
similar relief to be extended to him, in view of Article 25 of the
Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the
concurrent judgments of the learned Courts below to be set
aside.
\ \0 \)8 Tn.:e7c.~r' On the other hand, learned Assistant Attorney-Generai, .: .~.\ eO .... /J~:.
\/~'... defended the concurrent orders passed by the learned Courts
. ,1\ -) ~Iow. She further submitted that the Estate Office has no . . 1 ( / >~ intention of exchanging the suit accommodation with any other
f; .. :. .' ., ' .. :.'.-.,:.;.'.. .1'
"u .. \l~~:~~,r:::.<:~·;~~.'-*·¢.c.ommodation in the pool of. CDA; that the petitioner's :.. (. .. r'pe-~'_:: ,.:, ... ". .. ( .. :t .. ! \ Q<\". "~'\'~'l~\;:;,;,(,\,;:~;';;:occupation of the suit accommodation is without lawful
authority; that the petitioner has remained in occupation of the
. suit accommodation on the basis of interim orders passed by
the learned Courts below as well as this Court; that the COA has
its own pool of accommodation for its employees; that the COA
also maintains a general waiting' list for allotment of
accommodation on the basis of seniority. Learned Assistant
1 ,r
4 C.R.No.214 of 2016
Attorney-General prayed for the instant petition to be
dismissed.
8. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner as' well as the learned Assistant Attorney-General,
and have perused the record with their able assistance.
9. The facts leading to the filing of the instant civil revision
petition have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraphs 2 to
4 above, and need not be recapitulated.
10. It is an admitted position that the petitioner's father who
was a federal government servant retired from service with
effect from '16.04.2015. The suit accommodation had been
allotted to the petitioner's father with whom the petitioner has
been residing. The petitioner was appointed on 17.11.2014 as a
Steno-Typist in the COA. The petitioner is presently in
occupation of the suit accommodation.
11. It is also an admitted position that the suit accommodation
is not in the pool of the COA, but in the pool of the Estate Office.
On 18.04.201'6, the Administration Directorate of the CDA
informed the Estate Office that the COA would have no
objection if the suit accommodation is placed in the CDA's pool
for allotment to the petitioner on family transfer basis. The
position taken by the Estate Office before the learned Appellate
Court was that the said request of the Administration
~ TfUwr:~ctorate of the COA had been regretted. The Assistant
-' Attorney-General submitted that the Estate Office has no ) {1; /1J J 'J . ii(,tention of exchanging the suit accommodation with the COA . ._,
c'·:' ,,' 1.2. This Court, in a similar case (i.e. judgment dated ", .~.: ;:.:~
Copyc.,.-- .... ' .. £"'.I\iiO'iL':;~\\ ::"'~:;; :07.03.2017, passed in C.R.No.310/2016 titled "Muhammad #',~: I~ o"~ ;~~~~~;: :;'~i ;~~: ':::: I £" •• :' ".,
.~ _, I,,;:'><"'-"_' Hussain Vs. Estate Office and others") has held as follows:-
"
"16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thet the C.D.A. had issued a no objection certificate of the suit accommodation to be placed in the pool of the C.D.A. so that the same could be allotted to the petitioner, has not impressed me. Rule 4(1) of the AAR, 2002, inter-alia, provides that the Estate Office shall not place its accommodation at the pool of any other department except the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 151. Now, the vital question that needs to be answered is whether the petitioner can continue to remain in occupation of the suit accommodation in the hope that someday the Estate Office will exchange the suit accommodation with an
I .~
5 C.R.No.214 of 2016
accommodation that may be made available by the GOA. / would say, No. The petitioner cannot be extended the benefits of the proviso to Rule 15(2) of the AAR, 2002, for the simple reason that the suit accommodation has at no material stage, been placed in the pool of the GDA. The petitioner being an employee of the CDA is not entitled to government accommodation from the pool of the Estate Office. The petitioner cannot deprive the persons, who have been waiting for years in the General Waiting List maintained by the Estate Office under Rule 6 of the, AAR, 2002. The petitioner is at liberty to apply to the CDA for the allotment of accommodation from its own pool. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that regardless of Rule 4(1) of the AAR, 2002, in the recent. past, employees of the CDA had been allotted government accommodation from the pool of the Estate Office by placing such accommodation in pool of the CDA, suffice it to say that such an allotment in derogation of Rule 4(1) of the AAR, 2002, would not have any legal foundetion. Even otherwise, two wrongs do not make a right. The language of Rule 4(1) is couched in negative terms, and the placement of the Estate Office's accommodation on the pool of any other department (other than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and lSI), is not permissible by law i.e. AAR, 2002."
13. As regards the' contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner' that the Estate Office has in the past placed
government quarters in the pool of the COA, without taking any
government quarter in exchange from the COA, suffice it to say
that two wrongs do not make a right. Such an exchange would
be in clear derogation of Rule 4 of the AAR, 2002, and,
therefore, would not give the petitioner any right to be 'extended
• 1-,0> 'rrthe same benefit. " c\\o we; '.110 C"
:J~~' '··;jjn view. of the above, I do. not find any jurisdictional
.' 11 ' i' Infirmity in the concurrent orders, passed by the learned Courts
.... ,~elow. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to I::
COpy::.: c6s1s .:' ~':~i:~~~;I~;~~~;~;~:',;,;;.;':,~ -; ,; . ,.- ,
\ '---------_ _---'
(MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB) JUDGE
ANNOUNCED IN AN OPEN COURT ON, 'Z,l{ \ Q ~ 12017
(JUDGE) Qamar Khan*