Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 262954
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Qurban Ali Shah etc vs FOP etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 262954. In this matter between Qurban Ali Shah etc and FOP etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 09-JUN-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-949-2026 CITATION: 2026 IHC 262954 PARTIES: Qurban Ali Shah etc VS FOP etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Allotment, Allotment of Quarter REMARKS: Petitioners are father and sisters of a deceased government employee. They are aggrieved that they are not being allowed to retain the government accommodation allowed to the deceased and now post demise their entitlement ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Writ Petition No.949 of 2026 Syed Qurban Ali Shah and another Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works and others
Petitioner by:- Hafiz Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, learned Assistant Attorney-General along with S. Qamar Abbas, Asstt: Director, Estate Office.
Date of Hearing : 03.06.2026
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS , J. :- Through the captioned writ petition, the petitioners inter alia impugn memorandum dated 19.02.2026 issued by the Estate Office, Islamabad, whereby their request for retention of Quarter No.95 -C, Sector G -6/2, Islamabad (“the subject accommodation”), under the Prime Minister’s Assistance Package for Families of Government Employees who Die in Service, was declined. Furthermore, the petitioners seek a direction against the respondents to issue a formal retention/allotment letter in respect of the aforesaid Quarter in their favour in terms of Rule 15(1)(a) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 (“AAR”). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioners had been residing 2 W.P.949/2026
with Anee da Bibi in the subject accommodation, who unfortunately passed away while in service , and that under the Prime Minister’s Assistance Package read with the provisions of the AAR, the petitioners are fully entitled to retain the said accommodation. He submitted that the petitioners approached the respondents seeking allotment/retention of t he subject accommodation in their favour; however, their genuine and lawful request was not acceded to. It was further contended that in terms of Rule 15(1)(a) of the AAR, the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased employee, are legally entitled to retention of the accommodation in question. Learned counsel argued that instead of acting in accordance with the applicable rules and policies, the respondents failed to issue a formal allotment/retention letter in favour of the petitioners, thereby depriving them of their lawful rights. He, therefore, prayed for acceptance of the petition in terms of the relief sought therein. 3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Attorney -General assisted by the representative of the Estate Office , opposed the inst ant petition and contended that the petitioners have concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as they are dependent upon one Syed Niaz Hussain Shah, being the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, who has already been allotted gov ernment accommodation bearing Quarter No.570 -D, Sector G -6/2, Islamabad. It was submitted that at the time of allotment of the said accommodation, Syed Niaz Hussain Shah submitted the requisite application along with a family/census form wherein the names of the 3 W.P.949/2026
present petitioners were reflected as members of his family. Learned AAG further contended that the said accommodation was allotted to Syed Niaz Hussain Shah on compassionate grounds keeping in view the medical condition of petitioner No.1 and, ther efore, the petitioners cannot simultaneously claim retention of another government accommodation. It was further argued that apart from the subject accommodation and the accommodation occupied by Syed Niaz Hussain Shah, other sons and daughters of petition er No.1, who are serving in different government departments, have also been allotted government accommodations. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned AAG prayed for dismissal of the instant petition. 4. Arguments heard. Record perused. 5. The record reveals that the daughter of petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioner No.2 namely, Aneeda Bibi ( “deceased employee” ), who was serving as Computer Lab Incharge at Islamabad Model School for Girls, Sector G -6/1-3, Islamabad, passed away on 30.11. 2025 while still in service. During the course of her service, the deceased employee had been allotted the subject accommodation by the Estate Office, Islamabad vide allotment dated 14.06.2010. The petitioners have sought retention of the said accommodatio n primarily on the plea that they were dependent upon the deceased employee and, therefore, should be permitted to continue occupying the same until the date on which the deceased employee would have attained the age of superannuation had she remained alive. 4 W.P.949/2026
6. However, a careful examination of the record demonstrates that the aforesaid stance is not only self -contradictory but is also materially inconsistent with the petitioners’ own conduct and the documentary record placed before this Court. It has come on record that prior to the demise of the deceased employee, another son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, namely Syed Niaz Hussain Shah, had submitted an application seeking allotment of government accommodation wherein he categorically a sserted that he was maintaining his own family besides bearing responsibility for his aged parents and unmarried sister (viz the petitioners) . In his application dated 10.08.2023, he specifically pleaded that petitioner No.1 was approximately 90 years of a ge, suffering from multiple ailments, requiring frequent medical treatment at Federal Government hospitals including PIMS and Poly Clinic, and that government accommodation was required for facilitating such care and support. 7. Additionally, the prescribed form /census declaration submitted by the said son of petitioner No.1 expressly included the names of the present petitioners as his dependents and family members. Acting upon such representations, and particularly keeping in view the advanced age, medical condition and vulnerability of petitioner No.1 as well as the status of petitioner No.2 being lady , the Estate Office compassionately considered the request and vide letter dated 06.04.2023 allotted House No.570, Type-D, Sector G-6/2, Islamabad to Syed Niaz Hussain Shah on compassionate grounds and in relaxation of the ordinary course of allotment. 5 W.P.949/2026
8. The matter does not end there. The record further demonstrates that House No.570, Type -D, G -6/2 had earlier remained allotted to another son of pet itioner No.1 namely Syed Abid Hussain Shah, who apparently facilitated the transfer and continuation of allotment within the family structure in such a manner that government accommodation continued remaining available amongst different family members. Sim ultaneously, the subject accommodation remained with the deceased employee. The record is further suggestive of the fact that other son /daughters of petitioner No.1 have likewise remained beneficiaries of official accommodation, including allotments in G-11/4 and I-8/1, whereas another daughter namely Shaneeza Bibi has also been benefited from government accommodation arrangements. 9. It is also an admitted position that yet another son of petitioner No.1, while serving as Stenographer in the Ministry of Ov erseas Pakistanis, obtained government accommodation through relaxation of rules and on out-of-turn basis and subsequently succeeded in securing allotments in favour of his siblings as well. Consequently, the record prima facie portrays a consistent patter n whereby official accommodations have continuously remained available within the family through successive allotments, compassionate considerations and relaxation of rules. 10. What assumes greater significance is that the present petition proceeds entirely on the assertion that the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased employee and are therefore entitled to retain the 6 W.P.949/2026
subject accommodation, whereas the documentary record unequivocally establishes that the same petitioners had already been projected before the competent authorities as dependents of Syed Niaz Hussain Shah for obtaining separate official accommodation on compassionate grounds. These mutually destructive and i rreconcilable positions cannot legally coexist. The petitioners cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate simultaneously, nor can they be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath depending upon which version serves their immediate interest. 11. Apart from the foregoing, the petitioners' reliance upon Rule 15(1)(a) of the AAR is thoroughly misconceived and devoid of merit. The concession envisaged under the said Rule is undoubtedly a beneficial one; however, like all equitable and compassionate b enefits, it can only be invoked by a person who approaches the competent authority and the Court with complete candour, consistency and clean hands. The Rule was never intended to facilitate the retention of government accommodation through contradictory c laims of dependency or to enable a family to derive multiple accommodation -related benefits from the public exchequer by taking mutually inconsistent positions before different forums. Constitutional relief being discretionary in nature, a litigant who see ks enforcement of a beneficial provision must first demonstrate fairness, bona fides and complete disclosure of all material facts. 12. In the present case, the entire edifice of the petitioners' claim rests upon the assertion that they were dependent upon the deceased 7 W.P.949/2026
employee and are therefore entitled to retain the subject accommodation until the date on which the deceased employee would have attained the age of superannuation. However, the record paints an entirely different picture. It is an admitted p osition that one Syed Niaz Hussain Shah, being the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, had earlier approached the competent authority for allotment of government accommodation and, in support of his request, specifically represented that petitioner No.1 was of advanced age, suffering from various ailments, required frequent medical treatment and was dependent upon him for care, support and maintenance. Not only this, the prescribed family/census declaration submitted by him expressly incl uded the present petitioners as members of his household and dependents under his care. Acting upon such representations and taking into consideration the advanced age, medical condition and vulnerability of petitioner No.1, the authorities exercised excep tional compassion and allotted Quarter No.570-D, Sector G -6/2, Islamabad in favour of the said son through relaxation of the ordinary allotment procedure. 13. Having secured the aforesaid accommodation on the express premise that petitioner No.1 was depend ent upon Syed Niaz Hussain Shah and required accommodation for his care and maintenance, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to take a summersault by turning around and assert ing that they were in fact dependent upon the deceased employee so as to clai m retention of another government accommodation under Rule 15(1)(a) of the AAR. Such positions are 8 W.P.949/2026
inherently irreconcilable and mutually destructive. The petitioners cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate simultaneously, nor can they be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath according to the exigencies of the moment. Having derived a substantial benefit on the basis of one factual representation, they are estopped from asserting an altogether contrary state of affairs merely to obtain an additional benefit. 14. It is also noteworthy that no redundancy or superfluity can be attributed to Rule 15(1)(a) of the AAR. It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that every provision of a statute, rule or subordinate legislation must be construed in a manner that gives meaningful effect to its language and underlying purpose. An interpretation which renders a provision susceptible to abuse, defeats its object or makes other safeguards within the statutory scheme redundant is to be avoided . The Rule must therefore be interpreted harmoniously with the overall framework governing allotment and retention of government accommodation and not in isolation from the principles of fairness, transparency and equitable distribution that underpin the entire scheme. 15. If the interpretation advanced by the petitioners were to be accepted, it would mean that the same family could first obtain government accommodation on compassionate grounds by representing that the parents were dependent upon a son and thereafter secure retention of another accommodation by asserting that the very same parents were dependent upon a deceased daughter. 9 W.P.949/2026
Such an interpretation would effectively transform a narrowly tailored beneficial provision into a mechanism for perpetuat ing multiple claims over scarce public housing resources. It would not only undermine the purpose of Rule 15(1)(a) but would also render ineffective the dependency requirements and regulatory safeguards embodied in the Accommodation Allocation Rules. 16. The circumstances of the present case further demonstrate that the accommodation allotted to Syed Niaz Hussain Shah was itself granted primarily because of the dependency, age and infirmity of petitioner No.1. The compassionate consideration extended by the authorities was therefore directly linked with the welfare and housing needs of the present petitioners. Once such benefit had already been availed on the basis of petitioner No.1's dependency upon his son, the petitioners cannot, as a matter of law, equity or fair play, seek a second and simultaneous accommodation -related benefit on the basis of an inconsistent claim of dependency upon the deceased employee. To permit such a course would be contrary to the spirit of the Rules, inequitable to countless oth er government servants awaiting accommodation and wholly inconsistent with the principles governing distribution of public resources. 17. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that Rule 15(1)(a) of the AAR has no application to the peculiar fac ts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioners, having already derived the benefit of compassionate allotment through one family member on the basis of the dependency of petitioner No.1, cannot be 10 W.P.949/2026
permitted to invoke the same dependency to claim retention of another government accommodation through a different family member. The claim is therefore legally untenable, factually unsustainable and equitable relief is not available in its support. 18. The inevitable conclusion emerging from the record is that the petitioners seek to avail double benefits from the public exchequer by first asserting dependency upon Syed Niaz Hussain Shah for securing compassionate allotment of House No.570 -D, G -6/2, Islamabad and thereafter claiming dependency upon the deceased employee for retaining the subject accommodation indefinitely. Such conduct not only defeats the very object underlying compassionate allotments but also strikes at the principles of transparency, fairness and equitable distribution governing public accommodation. 19. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that government accommodation constitutes a scarce public resource meant for equitable distribution amongst deserving government servants in accordance with law and prescribed policy. Permittin g retention under such circumstances would amount to legitimizing multiple simultaneous benefits within the same family unit at the expense of numerous other eligible employees awaiting accommodation through lawful channels. 20. Furthermore, this Court is constrained to observe that material facts pertaining to prior allotments, dependency declarations and existing accommodations available within the family have either not been candidly disclosed or have been selectively presented before this 11 W.P.949/2026
Court. A litigant invoking constitutional jurisdiction is under a solemn obligation to approach the Court with utmost candour, complete disclosure and clean hands. Constitutional jurisdiction, being discretionary in nature, cannot be invoked through suppression, selective disclosure or misrepresentation of material facts. 21. Accordingly, this Court finds no legal, equitable or constitutional justification to permit continuation of occupation of the subject accommodation. However, solely considering the advanced age and infirm condition of petitioner No.1, this Court exercises restraint and refrains from imposing costs upon the petitioners, though the circumstances of the case otherwise warranted the same. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Announced in an open Court on 09.06.2026.
JUDGE Sanaullah**
Approved for reporting.