Find a Lawyer

Revision Application No. 386 of 1986, decided on 16th December, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Government accommodation‑‑Petitioners, as a result of their appointment /absorption in Rice Export Corporation, ceasing to be Government servants for all intents and purposes‑‑Contention raised by such employees for retaining Government accommodation duly considered by Courts below and repelled for valid reasons in their concurrent findings‑ Interference declined in revisional jurisdiction.

‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Allotment of Government accommodation‑‑Discretionary with Government‑‑ Government having discretion to allow persons, absorbed /appointed in Corporations, to continue in Government accommodation which was allotted to them as Government servants‑‑Failure to exercise such discretion, held, could not be enforced through any process of Court as allowing such employees of Corporation to continue in Government accommodation was only a concession available at discretion of authorities and could not be subject to control by any legal process.

Abdul Majeed Khan for Applicants.

This Revision Application is filed against the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below, whereby the suit, instituted by the petitioner and several other persons in representative capacity, was dismissed. Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, contends that the order of the Courts below, holding that the applicants were not entitled to retain the Government accommodation after their absorption in the service of the Rice Export Corporation established by the Government of Pakistan, was not correct, as, by virtue of Ordinance XII of 1978 (Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978), the applicants for all intents and purposes and, as such under the Allocation Rules, they were entitled to the Government accommodation, which was in their possession immediately before their absorption as employees of the Rice Export Corporation. It is alternatively contended by the learned counsel that, under the Allocation Rules, it was open to the Estate Officer to allow the applicants to continue in possession of the accommodation allotted to them as Government servants till such time alternate accommodation was provided by the Rice Export Corporation. The contentions raised by the learned counsel have been duly considered by the Courts below and repelled for valid reasons. It is an admitted position that the applicants became employees of the Rice Export Corporation on its establishment by the Government and, as a result of their appointment in the Rice Export Corporation, they relinquished their earlier appointment in the relevant Government Departments. After the appointment of the applicants in the Rice Export Corporation they became employees of the Corporation and ceased to be Government servants for all intents and purposes. Ordinance XIII of 1978, referred to by the learned counsel for the applicants, was promulgated for a limited purpose of regulating the service dispute of the employees of the Corporation established by the Government, under the Service Tribunals Act, and, by virtue of section 5 of that Ordinance, all such disputes were made amenable to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. There is nothing in that Ordinance to show that other than the service dispute of the employees of the Corporation, such employees were to be treated as Government servants for all other intents and purposes. In so far as the question of allowing all the applicants to continue in the Government accommodation allotted to them at the time they were the Government servants is concerned, that discretion was, no doubt, available to the authorities concerned, B but failure to exercise that discretion cannot be enforced through any process of the Court, as allowing the employees of the Corporation to continue in the Government accommodation was only a concession available at the discretion of the authorities concerned, which could not be subject to the control of any legal process. It is also contended by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, that the applicants were not given proper opportunity to defend the suit, which was decided by the trial Court under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. as a result of failure of the applicants to appear on the date of hearing. This contention too has no force, as no evidence was, as such, required to be produced in the case, as the case of the applicants was entirely on a legal plane, namely, whether after their absorption in the service of the Rice Export Corporation, they still continue to be Government servants. This contention of the applicants has been dealt with satisfactorily and, as such, they have not been prejudiced, in any manner, by the decision of the case under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. No case for interference is made out. The Revision Application is, therefore, summarily dismissed. As a result of dismissal of the main Revision Application, Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1485/1986 is also dismissed.

M.Y.H./S‑44/K Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.