PLJ 2013 Islamabad
Present: Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, J.
FARID-UD-DIN--Petitioner
versus
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD
W.P. No. 561 of 2013, decided on 18.2.2013.
Constitution of Pakistan
----Art. 199--Capital Development Authority Ordinance, S. 49--Islamabad Land
Mr. Sher Afzal Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 18.2.2013.
Order
Through this single order Writ Petition No. 607 & 561 of 2013 are being disposed of together involving common question of law and facts.
Petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant petitions with the following prayer:
"That for the reasons afore-cited, it is humbly prayed that upon acceptance of this writ petition, the petitioners may graciously be declared entitled to the allotment of plots as per balloting and respondents may graciously be directed to issue offer and allotment letters in favour of the petitioners. Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances and not specifically prayed for may also graciously be awarded.
AND presented the facts as under:--
WRIT PETITION NO. 561/2013
Petitioner was posted on deputation in CDA as Director Land and Rehabilitation on 11th Nov. 2011 and served in CDA on deputation until 27th Nov. 2012 where after posted as Deputy Project Director (MRP), Directorate General of Immigration and Passport which position is held by him till date.
WRIT PETITION NO. 607/2013
Petitioner No. 1 served in CDA on deputation basis as Director Project Said Pur Model Village from Jan. 13th 2007 to March 30, 2009, Petitioner No. 2 served in CDA on deputation basis as Deputy Director from Jan. 1st 2005 to 31st October 2009, Petitioner No. 3 is currently working as Deputy Director One Window in CDA on deputation basis from October 2010 till date, Petitioner No. 4 served in CDA on deputation basis as Deputy Director Parliament House from Jan. 31st July 2005 to April 5, 2010, Petitioner No. 5 served in CDA on deputation basis as Deputy Director one Window from 08.08.2009 to August 29th, 2012, Petitioner No. 6 served in CDA on deputation basis as Deputy Director Land Rehabilitation from Sept. 2005 to March, 2010 whereas Petitioner No. 7 served in CDA on deputation basis as Audit Officer from 23rd Dec. to 31st August 2009.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that, Respondent No. 2, CDA Board through its Secretary, vide decision dated 21.12.2006 interalia held that all the deputationist on the strength of CDA on 28.11.2005 are eligible for allotment of plot if they otherwise meet the required criteria specified by the CDA Board and all the deputationistsjoining thereafter i.e 28.11.2005 will automatically become eligible as and when they meet the other parameters. It was also approved that, Cut-off date fordeputationists is specified as 28.11.2005 and on completion of one year service in CDA on this date or thereafter. Therefore, a right having accrued to them a number of CDA officers including deputationists filed writ petitions before Hon'ble High Court which were decided in their favour were also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and all the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3041/2011 were allotted plots by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners had become eligible for allotment of plots after serving for a mandatory one year term in the CDA and in view of availability of plots in the their category, they had legitimate expectations of being dealt with in accordance with law and the principle of stare-decisis as held in earlier judgments of the superior Courts. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that petitioners duly applied for allotment of plots on the basis of their eligibility and balloting was also held in this regard and some plots were earmarked for petitioners but they have been ignored for the purpose of issuance of offer letters on the pretext that with expiration of their term of deputation, they could not be held entitled for issuance of allotment letters. Learned counsel further contended that till Jan. 9th 2013, respondents issued a total 113 offer letters which also include 22 such officers who joined CDA much after the petitioners and this aspect alone shows mala fide and unfairness on the part of respondent authority.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The petitioners have pressed their claim mainly on the basis of the anomaly that the petitioner's should also be treated as an employee of CDA as they have also remained on deputation in CDA for over a period of one year. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have annexed the judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court dated 21-01-2004, the judgment of Apex Court of Pakistan dated 28.11.2005 and the judgment rendered by this Court on 09-03-2011. Perusal of the judgments of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court and august Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 28-11-2005 reveals that there was no issue in those cases that whether a deputationistshould be equated with the regular employee of CDA. There is nothing in these judgments that a deputationist enjoys equal status of a regular employee of CDA. Resultantly these decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court and the august Supreme Court of Pakistan do not extend any help to the petitioners.
6. After considering all the relevant law on the subject in juxtaposition to the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, I hold that provisions contained in Section 49 of CDA Ordinance and Regulations 4 & 5 of Islamabad Land Disposal Regulations 2005 provides that the authority constituted under the supra Ordinance may rent, exchange or otherwise dispose of any land vested in it. This unbridled power conferred on the authority is regulated through the Regulation Nos. 4 & 5 of the supra Regulations of 2005.
7. In Regulation No. 5, it is provided that all residential plots in developed schemes shall be allotted with the manner that 75% of the plots will be allotted through open balloting at prevailing market price, 10% plots Will be allotted to the Federal Government Servants including employees of Federal Autonomous/Semi-Autonomous bodies, 5% plots to-be allotted to the Defence Service personals including civilians paid out of Defence estimates, 5% of plot to be allotted to the deprived groups and 5% are to be allotted to the CDA employees. The petitioners have merely served the CDA on deputation for few years and they may avail their right of allotment of any plot under 10% quota reserved for the Federal Government Servants and they have no right to claim their entitlement on the anomaly that they being thedeputationist be also considered as employee of CDA. Sub-clause (2) of Regulation No. 5 further provides that authority may reserve any land for the residence of Government Employees including employees of CDA, Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous bodies and for the affectees of Islamabad
8. The scanning of available record reflects that the CDA had reserved 20% of the plots in the schemes to be developed for the Government Servants and the petitioners being the Government Servants may avail the allotment of the residential plots in their capacity of Government Servant from the remaining quota of 80%. The petitioners have not shown any valid justification in the petition that why they have not availed the right of allotment of residential plot in the scheme reserved for Government Officers or that whether they have already obtained the allotment of some plot as regular Government employees. As per Section 37 of the supra Ordinance, the authority may appoint such officer, servant or consultant as it may consider necessary for performance of its functions and it is evident that the petitioners are neither appointed by the authority nor they have been absorbed in CDA and they joined the Federal Service in some other cadre. The decision of the CDA Board dated 21-12-2006 whereby the deputationists for some time have been considered to be having the equal status of regular employees of CDA is a door of corruption as a number of Government Officers will find it lucrative to serve on deputation in CDA for the allotment of residential plots as the employees of CDA instead of waiting in long queue of Government Officers and it seems to be an effort of some of the Government employees to obtain the residential plots in an irregular and illegal manner and they not only discourage the regular employees of CDA but also gains the illegal and unconstitutional advantage over their other colleagues who do not find any opportunity to obtain deputation in CDA. With these observations that petitioners being Government Employees may apply for the residential plot in their capacity of Government Servants on regular quota as provided for other Government servants, they are not entitled to take the shortcut which is not backed by the constitution and therefore, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
(R.A.) Petitions dismissed
