LAHORE, Jan 22: The Punjab Ombudsman has taken a serious view of the ‘mal-administration’ on the part of the Provincial Workers Welfare Board for not allotting a residential flat to a labourer despite his success in the lucky draw.

The flat was constructed out of the workers welfare fund.

Ombudsman Justice Sajjad Ahmad Sipra (retired) directed the Board chairman to provide relief to Muhammad Ashraf and take necessary measures to ‘eliminate chances of such act of mal-administration in future’.

Ashraf had submitted that he applied in response to a PPWWB advertisement for the allotment of a flat and deposited required amount of Rs54,750 in favour of the Board’s chairman on May 20, 1999.

His application was processed and as being eligible he was given Board’s receipt slip (serial No 284) on July 27, 1999, and he came out successful in the computer draw. But, he had neither been allotted the flat nor handed over its possession.

The Board authorities said in the report to the ombudsman that Ashraf’s application had been accepted. Receipt No 284 was inadvertently issued to him instead of receipt No 289. They said that Ashraf had no concern with receipt No 284 and as such the case was processed in favour of Muhammad Rafiq.

The Ombudsman observed that it was also transpired that the scrutiny, if all done, was for the eligibility of the applicants for the lucky draw. The agency, he added, grossly neglected to respond to the complaint of Ashraf until September 2001, when the Boards’ secretary explained that serial number of his application was 289 which was admittedly mentioned as 284 in the receipt slip given to him at the time of submission of application and that this serial No 284 came out successful in computer draw.

The Board had also admitted that the impugned prescribed application form which contained serial No 284 of the complainant, was dubbed with over-writing. The over-written serial No 289 was un-authenticated and un-signed showing mala fide.

The Ombudsman also observed that the agency ever since May 20, 1999, had retained Rs54,750 of the complainant worker which itself was unjust, arbitrary and perverse and the proceedings of the scrutiny committee concerned were undated.

The agency representative had further admitted that out of 272 flats under the scheme only 264 were allotted to the workers while remaining eight flats were used for the purposes other than meant for.

Out of these four flats, according to the agency representative, had been kept vacant to date.