ISLAMABAD: In compliance with an order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), the Estate Office has cancelled almost 3,000 allotments of government houses to civil servants, including over two dozen senior bureaucrats.

An official told Dawn that the decision was taken in line with a court order and now the fresh allotments would be made to eligible officials on the basis of seniority.

In its order last month, the high court had directed the Estate Office to cancel allotment letters issued on a subject-to-vacancy basis.

The direction was given in the judgement on a petition which was dismissed by the court. Petitioner Sumera Nazir Siddiqui, a member of the anti-dumping court, approached the court against the cancellation of a government house allotted to her.

Bureaucrats to move Supreme Court, say directions tantamount to exercise of suo motu powers by IHC judge

IHC Justice Babar Sattar had rejected her petition.

He, however, directed the government to allocate funds to construct judges’ houses by March next year and sought the removal of houses allotted to the judges from the Estate Office Pool.

It may be mentioned that the Estate Office issued about 3,000 allotment letters to the civil servants for houses currently occupied by government servants, poised to retire in a few months. Besides, some judges of the IHC were also issued the allotment letters on a subject-to-vacancy basis.

Justice Sattar thrashed out the relevant rules and observed that the judges of the IHC were allotted accommodation under Rule 6(7) of the accommodation rules.

The attorney general stated that the federation conceded that the allotment of residences to judges was subject to provisions of the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997.

Justice Sattar noted that the judges were entitled to accommodation on the day of their appointment and throughout the service.

“Their entitlement to the provision of accommodation by the state is governed by the presidential order and not the accommodation rules,” he added.

He noted that five of the eight serving judges of the IHC had been provided accommodation whereas the remaining three serving judges would be provided accommodation in Category Type-I after the next three houses fall vacant. The judge said this “impinges on the independence of the judiciary.”

Justice Sattar ordered the housing ministry that “the names of judges will be removed from the list of allottees maintained under the rules to ensure that there exists no perception that judges are to be allotted houses from the pool that is reserved for FGSs”.

He further directed the government to “expedite” the construction of residences for judges of the IHC.

The court noted that the rules do not support the issuance of allotment letters on a subject-to-vacancy basis.

The practice has created a lack of transparency and room for arbitrariness and asked the ministry to abolish this practice.

‘Dispute over house’

According to a senior official of the Estate Office, the IHC administration was seeking a house for Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, which was allotted to Controller General of Accounts (CGA) Maqbool Gondal on the subject-to-vacancy basis in Sector F-6/3.

Director General Estate Office Ubaiduddin told Dawn that the dispute over this house was referred to the secretary of housing and works.

However, since the CGA allotment has also been cancelled in compliance with the court orders, along with others, the secretary “is now in a position to decide the ‘dispute’ without much deliberation”, said the official privy to the development.

The court in its order also observed a lack of transparency and arbitrariness and allotments have been made out of turn“ and directed the government to “involve the Ministry of Information Technology (IT) to create a database of all FGSs/state employees who are entitled to allotment.”

Senior bureaucrats whom Dawn spoke to intended to file a petition before the Supreme Court against the cancellation of their allotments, saying that the Estate Office complied with the direction issued on the dismissed petition.

Legal experts said that the direction issued on a dismissed petition was tantamount to exercising suo motu powers. They were of the view that a judge of the high court could not exercise suo motu powers.

Published in Dawn, November 16th, 2023