ISLAMABAD: As it questioned the allotment of official accommodation to retired civil servants, the Islamabad High Court has sought the record of houses allotted to government employees in general as well allocations made after relaxation in rules since January last year.

IHC Justice Babar Sattar raised certain questions on the allotments while hearing a petition filed by

Sumaira Nazir Siddiqui, a member of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, and directed the Ministry of Housing and Works to submit a response at the next hearing, on August 21.

It may be mentioned that government officials had expressed concerns over alleged violations of guidelines set by the superior courts for making the allotment of official residences.

Judge sees ‘colourable exercise of authority’ in allocation of govt houses

It was alleged that the general waiting list was not being updated, especially after the PDM government took over following the no-confidence motion against former prime minister Imran Khan in April last year.

Ms Siddiqui was a retired civil servant who was reemployed in Sept 2019 and allotted a house on Nov 21, 2022. However, the allotment was cancelled on Aug 2, 2023 without any prior notice.

Her counsel said that the Ministry of Law opined that she might be allotted an accommodation in Category-I that was previously allotted to and in possession of her husband, who retired as a federal secretary.

However, the housing ministry cancelled the allotment without any prior intimation to the petitioner, the counsel argued.

The court directed the Ministry of Housing to file a comprehensive report that shall include certain information regarding the accommodation that falls within Category-I.

The court also sought a list of accommodations that fall within Category-I, categories of state officials (from all state institutions) who are entitled to grant and/or allotment of state accommodation that the government is obliged to provide under Category-I in Islamabad.

The list of eligible entities whose employees are eligible for official accommodation and the general waiting list or lists maintained by the federal government since Jan 2021 for this purpose.

The court also sought the details of accommodations allotted during the previous regime.

Besides, the court sought the list of officials allotted government accommodation after their superannuation.

The court directed the Ministry of Law to explain the basis on which it rendered opinions that federal government employees could

be granted accommodation after their superannuation, as in the petitioner’s case, and reasons for the reversal of such opinion, together with copies of the opinions rendered.

The judge observed that the basic allegation in the instant petition is that the petitioner has been treated in a discriminatory manner by the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Law.

The quantum of litigation around allotment of official accommodation, prima facie, suggests that allotment of official accommodation is regarded by the federal government as largess to be distributed in a hushed manner based on extraneous considerations.

Justice Sattar noted that the instant case reflects that while accommodation under Category-I was allotted to the petitioner after superannuation upon being rehired in MP1 scale, in breach of

provision of Rule 3(4) of the Rules, on the basis of a note generated by the Ministry of Housing and supported by Ministry of

Law, but the allotment was cancelled once a different set of civil servants came to control the reigns of the Ministry of Housing and Ministry of Law.

If true, this is tantamount to a colourable exercise of authority in breach of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act and Article 4 guarantee of the Constitution, he observed.

Published in Dawn, August 15th, 2023