Law: Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002

Section: 15(1)(a)

  Summary (Core Points) Case: Petitioners challenged the Estate Office's decision refusing retention of Quarter No. 95-C, G-6/2, Islamabad after the death of government employee Aneeda Bibi, claiming entitlement under the Prime Minister's Assistance Package and Rule 15(1)(a) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules (AAR), 2002. Petitioners' Argument: They were dependent on the deceased employee. They had been living with her. They were entitled to retain the government accommodation until the deceased's retirement age. Government's Argument: Petitioners had already been declared dependents of Syed Niaz Hussain Shah (son/brother), who had received another government house (Quarter No. 570-D) on compassionate grounds. Multiple members of the same family had already benefited from government accommodations. Petitioners concealed these facts. Court's Key Findings Contradictory Claims Petitioners earlier claimed dependency on Syed Niaz Hussain Shah to obtain one government house. Now they claimed dependency on the deceased employee to retain another house. These two positions cannot legally coexist. Multiple Government Housing Benefits Evidence showed several family members had already received government accommodations through compassionate grounds or special relaxations. The Court found a pattern of continuous occupation of government houses within the same family. Rule 15(1)(a) Misused The rule is intended as a compassionate benefit. It cannot be used to obtain multiple accommodation benefits through inconsistent dependency claims. Clean Hands Doctrine Petitioners failed to disclose material facts. Constitutional relief is discretionary and requires honesty, full disclosure, and consistency. Public Interest Government accommodation is a scarce public resource. Allowing retention would unfairly deprive other deserving government employees. Court's Decision Petition Dismissed. Petitioners are not entitled to retain the accommodation. No costs were imposed only because petitioner No.1 was of advanced age and poor health. Core Legal Principles A person cannot approbate and reprobate (take contradictory positions for personal benefit).…