CHAIRMAN WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and anothers vs NOOR ELAHI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman WAPDA against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent employee's appeal regarding the recovery of standard rent for retaining official accommodation post-retirement. The core legal question concerned whether a retired employee could be charged standard rent for unauthorized occupation when an application for regular transfer of the accommodation to his serving son, also a WAPDA employee, remained pending and undecided. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 14 of the Government Residences Allocation Rules, the accommodation was retainable at normal rent until alternative accommodation or proper disposal of the eligible serving family member's transfer application occurred. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the respondent was only liable for normal rent for the disputed period. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a retired government employee can be charged standard rent for retaining official accommodation while an application for transfer of the accommodation to a serving family member is pending?
- Is an employee entitled to retain official accommodation at normal rent under Rule 14 of the Government Residences Allocation Rules until alternative accommodation is provided?
- Rule 14, Government Residences Allocation Rules
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners against judgment dated 9-6-1994 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby Appeal No,113/R of 1994 filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. Noor Elahi respondent herein, an employee of WAPDA was in occupation of Quarter No,723-C, Sector G-7/3-1, Islamabad. He retained possession thereof for over a period of three years after the date of his retirement. The petitioners assuming that his occupation of the quarter with effect from 14-5-1991 to 30-6-1993 being unauthorized issued directive on 18-10-1992 to D.M.(E), Operation Division No,2, Islamabad to stop his pension till the recovery of the standard rent for the period in question. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order before the Departmental Authority op the ground that during the pendency of his appeal against his premature retirement as also the pendency of an application filed by his son, an employee of WAPDA the claim of standard rent was untenable. His appeal failed before the Departmental Authority but his appealbefore the Service Tribunal was allowed vide impugned order referred to above. The main ground pressed into the service by the learned Federal Service Tribunal was that under Rule 14 of the Government Residences Allocation Rules respondent was entitled to retain the accommodation at the normal rent till such time as alternative accommodation of ' his entitlement was made available to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent was entitled to retain possession of the quarter for period of six months but he unauthorized occupied the quarter for a period of three years despite notices having been served upon him. He, however, was unable to controvert the factum of respondent's son being an employee of WAPDA and that an application made by him for allotment of the quarter was not disposed of. The learned Federal Service Tribunal after quoting contents of Rule 14 observed as under:-- "A bare reading of the above shows that accommodation is transferable to one of the serving members of an allottee of Government accommodation provided he is eligible. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent-WAPDA had taken any action on the application of the appellant's son who is also serving in that Organization and was eligible."
' The learned Tribunal, therefore, modified the order of the Departmental Authority and directed that normal rent be charged for the period in question from the respondent.
4. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the light of the provisions of Rule 14 and the circumstances of the instant case, but find ourselves not inclined to interfere' in the impugned order, which is just and proper.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed and .