Supreme Court of Pakistan: A Full Bench of Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, JJ. allowed a petition to charge Standard(Penal) Rent against unauthorized retention of government accommodation.

In the concerned case, the respondent filed a petition before the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) on 10-07-2006 before his retirement on 09-10 2006 praying that he should be allowed to retain the official accommodation after his retirement. He submitted that as his pension, GP Fund and other dues had not been paid, he was not in a position to rent a new house and, therefore, requested to retain the official accommodation in question for a period of six months. The Tribunal issued a stay order in the case and it was listed for final hearing in 2010 almost after 3 years. Till that time, the respondent continued to live in the official accommodation and then withdrew his petition before the date of final judgment. As regards to the decision of penal rent for the term extending 6 months, the Tribunal observed that the respondent was not liable to pay Penal Rent but only the regular rent as his was living in the official accommodation due to the stay order granted by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, an application has been filed in the Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant Mr Izharhul Haq contended that there is a clear abuse of power and process in the present case. The respondent had lived in the official accommodation for more than six months and was hence, liable to pay Penal rent for a term exceeding 6 months. He further said that the respondent had no convincing argument and kept hiding behind the stay order granted by the Tribunal. He also submitted that the petition of respondent in the Tribunal was not even maintainable in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution as it does not raise any substantial question of law of public importance.

Learned counsel for the respondent Mr Hafiz Tariq Nasim said before the Court that the respondent was only living in the official accommodation in light of the stay order which was granted by the Tribunal. The respondent had no intention to defeat the provisions of any law.

The Court after listening to both the parties observed that as per Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked only if the Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance. It is to be seen that whether the question of law transcends the facts of the individual case and is substantial enough to have a significant bearing on the public interest. Thus, the remedy under Article 212(3) is not an appeal in the ordinary sense of the word but is a unique constitutional jurisdiction that is to be exercised if the question of law raised before the Court impinges on the rights of the public or a segment of public or a community of civil servants.

The question as to whether a civil servant can unauthorizedly retain official accommodation beyond a period of six months without paying penal rent requires interpretation of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002; and thus the same constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance because the decision by this Court would affect all those civil servants who are subject to the said Rules.

The Court opined that as per the rules, the respondent could have retained official accommodation after his retirement only for a period of six months and thereafter he was liable to pay standard rent for the remaining period. The stay order granted by the Tribunal was insignificant in the instant case as it was not decided on merits and was finally withdrawn by the respondent, resulting in the withdrawal of the stay order, as if it never existed. For the above reasons this appeal was allowed and order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. Appellant Department was entitled to recover Standard Rent from the respondent.[Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassam, 2019 SCC OnLine Pak SC 5, decided on 21-03-2019]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.