Allotment of government accommodation: IHC grants stay order in petition of 33 judges

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Monday maintained its stay order in a petition of 33 judges from lower judiciary of Islamabad challenging the government's notification to withdraw the allotment of government accommodation to them. A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani heard the petition and again issued notices to an officer of Ministry of Housing and the Estate Officer and directed them to submit their replies in this connection.

After issuing the aforementioned hearing, the IHC bench deferred hearing till December 18 by maintaining the stay order in this petition. In this matter, the petitioners approached the court through their counsel Babar Saeed Advocate and cited the federation through Secretary Housing and Works, Miraj Muhammad Khan, section officer (policy), Ministry of Housing, and Estate Office as respondents.

Later, employees of Ministry of CADD and PIMS also approached the court challenging the similar notification of the Ministry of Housing and Works. In their petition, they stated that petitioners are judicial officers at Islamabad and are eligible and entitled for allotment of government accommodation. The petitioners added that they were allotted government accommodation as per their entitlement and possession of the said accommodation were handed over to them and house rent allowance is also being deducted from their monthly salary.

They adopted that the petitioners are legal and lawful allottees of the accommodations. But, they told the court that on 28 March, the respondents without any reason or justification issued a notification whereby the eligibility of the judicial officers for allotment of the government accommodation was withdrawn.

They contended that it is the basic principle that all the stakeholders should be taken in confidence, however, before issuing impugned notification, no such exercise was undertaken.

The petitioners argued that the said notification was issued under Rule 28 of AAR, however, bare reading of the rules does not give any such right to the respondents to issue any such notification, hence, impugned notification was issued in excess of legal authority of the Estate Office. They maintained that necessary legal and procedural requirements and other conditions precedent for issuance of notification have not been met before issuance of impugned notification, thus the same is illegal, unlawful and unjustified.

Therefore, the petitioners prayed to the court to accept their petition and the said impugned notification may kindly be declared illegal, void ab initio, ultra vires and issued without any lawful authority, consequently the same is ineffective qua the rights of the petitioners. They further requested that the respondents may be permanently restrained from taking any action, prejudicial to the interests and rights of the petitioners, in continuation of impugned notification.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2019