ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

Constitution Petition No. D-143 of 2025

(Izhar Ali Dhamraho Vs. Chief Executive Officer

SEPCO Sukkur and Ors)

Date

Order with signature of Judge

Before:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar,

Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro,

1. For order on office objection “A”.

2. For hearing of main case.

Petitioner: Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.

Respondents No 1 to 3: Through Mr. Asif Hussain Chandio, Advocate.

Respondent No.4. Through Mr. Oshaq Ali Sangi, Assistant Attorney

General for Pakistan.

Respondent No.5. Through Mr. Gul Muhammad Pathan, Advocate a/w

Respondent No.5.

Date of hearing: 17-04-2025

Date of order: 17-04-2025

O R D E R

Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro J.- Through instant Petition, the Petitioner seeks following relief:

(a) That this Honorable Court may be graciously be pleased to issue directions to Respondents to get the Quarter No F – 01 WAPDA Colony Larkana, vacated from the Respondent No 05 being illegal occupation of the same since July 2022 being a retired employee and peaceful possession of same be handed over to the Petitioner being its lawful allottee.

2. Case of the petitioner in brief is that he is employed in Sukkur Electric Power Company, (SEPCO) Larkana as Assistant Lineman (ALM). There is a residential colony for accommodation of SEPCO employees in Larkana, where Quarter No.F-1 (the quarter)was allotted to respondent No.5, who was working as Lineman-I in SEPCO, Larkana. On retirement of Respondent No.5 on 21.06.2022, the quarter was allotted to petitioner, but respondent No.5 did not vacate it, therefore, petitioner moved an application dated 07.03.2024 to respondents No.2 and 3 seeking their assistance for vacation of “the quarter” and its possession to petitioner, which remained unheeded, hence Petitioner filed Petition seeking indulgence of this Court to put him in possession of the quarter.

3. On notice, respondent No.5 filed his written comments, wherein it has been stated that after his retirement, “the quarter” was allotted to petitioner, who rented out “the quarter” to him and received an amount of Rs Rs.1.4 Million as pagri (good will amount) with an undertaking that he will return for vacation. On demand of pagri he moved applications to officials of SEPCO and filed this Petition.

4. S.H.O.P.S Civil Lines, Larkana and S.S.P. Larkana Respondents No.6 & 7 in their respective replies have stated that they are not concerned with allotment and cancellation issue of “the Quarter” as same pertains to SEPCO department.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material available on record.

6. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that since last more than two and half years, respondent No.5 is under illegal occupation of “the quarter” and house rent is being deducted from salary of petitioner. He contended that despite approaches for many a times official respondents have failed to get premises vacated. He contended that accommodation in WAPDA colony is only for use of serving employees of SEPCO and Respondent No 5 has retired from service in the month of June 2022, therefore his possession is unauthorized and illegal. He denied the allegations of receiving any pagri or rent from Respondent No 5. He prayed for issuing directions to the authorities to hand over the possession of “the quarter” to Petitioner.

7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No 5 contended that the Quarter was allotted to him when he was in service and after his retirement from service the quarter was allotted to Petitioner. Since Respondent No 5 was not having alternate residence therefore he requested Petitioner to temporarily allow him toreside in Quarter. Petitioner allowed Respondent No 5 to stay in Quarter on payment of monthly rent and an amount of Rs 1.4 million as pagri. Respondent No 5 when arranged alternate residence he demanded pagri amount which was refused by the Petitioner, therefore he has filed suit for recovery of Pagri amount before the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge IV Larkana, which is pending adjudication. He contended that Respondent No 5 paid pagri amount to retain possession of “the quarter” for temporary per customary practice in WAPDA Colony therefore willnot vacate “the quarter” until the pagri is paid to him. He contended that if Petition is allowed Respondent No 5 would be deprived of his due amount, he therefore prayed for dismissal of the Petition till adjudication of civil suit.

8. Learned Assistant Attorney General so assisted by Learned Counsel for SEPCO contended that Respondent No 5 was occupying the quarter unauthorizedly and despite of repeated warnings he failed to handed over the possession. Petitioner was entitled to seek possession of quarter;they supported the case of Petitioner.

9. Heard Learned Counsel for Parties and perused material available on record.

10. Perusal of record revealed that petitioner was allotted “the quarter”on 21.06.2022, but he remained silent for a considerable time and filed application before SEPCO authorities in the month of March, 2024 after the lapse of about 2 years’ time, for which there is no explanation on record. It is strange that during the intervening period Petitioner paid monthly rent of “the quarter” through at source deduction from his salary, but did not raise any hue and cry for getting possession of the quarter. Petitioner approached this Court on 03.03.2025 seeking indulgence for vacation of “the quarter”,when confrontedwith above position Learned Counsel for Petitioner failed to render any plausible explanation and contended that he moved applications to SEPCO authorities but remained unheeded. Perusal of file reflects that Petitioner has moved application to SEPCO authorities on 07.03.2024 after about 21 months of the allotment of “the quarter”, which prima facies leads us to an inference that “the quarter” was sublet to Respondent No 5, which is not permissible under the law.

11. Contention of Respondent No 5 that “the Quarter” would be vacated only on payment of Pagri, is quite shocking and surprising. Acceptance or demand of pagri for residential accommodation in a government colony is an act of “Bhatta Khori” or Extortion and per claim of Respondent No 5 such an act is a customary practice for vacation and possession of government residence. Such illegal practice cannot continue without the assistance of officers at the helm of affairs. It is also shocking that Respondent No 5 for the enforcement of such an illegal practice has also filed a suit which is pending adjudication before the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge IV Larkana. This practice of pagri appears to be a very serious issue, in case if a poor employee gets allotment of government residence, he will not get possession until he pays pagri to previous occupant.

12. This system of pagri (goodwill amount)though prevails in the rental issues of private properties and is in vogue in big and small markets where if a demised premises is under possession of a tenant, he passes the possession to new tenant on payment of pagri at the prevailing rate, in case of nonpayment, he may sue the landlord. But this practice cannot apply to government residence.

13. It is the responsibility of functionaries dealing with Government accommodation colonies to get vacated the premises within stipulated time on transfer or retirement or death of allottee as the case may be, within six months’ time. An employee on retirement or transfer and family of deceased employee loses the right to retain possession of premises on expiry of six months, the fresh allotment of government residence should be done after the expiry of such period. In the present case, Respondent No 5 retired from services on 21.06.2022, on the same date “the Quarter” was allotted to Petitioner which action on the part of SEPCO authorities was not tenable. Respondent No 5 should have been granted six months’ time, wisdom of subordinate legislation behind such grace is to grant sufficient time to allottee for arrangement of alternate residence. The process for fresh allotment should commence once the possession of premises is retrieved by authority. The allotment in favor of Petitioner on the very day of retirement of Respondent No 5 from face of it appears to be a colorful exercise on the part of SEPCO authorities.

14. Respondent No 5 has retired from services on 01.06.2022, since his retirement he is retaining possession of government accommodation without any lawful authority and SEPCO authorities have not taken any action to get possession of premises. After lapse of six months’ time Respondent No 5 was a squatter and legal allotee thus not entitled to retention of Government accommodation which is only meant for serving employees. Inaction on the part of SEPCO authorities manifested that illegal practice of pagri has backing of officers who otherwise needful could have been done in time. Federal Government has framed Accommodation Rules 2002, which covers allotment and cancellation of official residence, the rule making is not a cosmetic activity but a well delicate and meditated task of empowering the authority at the helm of affairs to exercise powers within the frame work of law, authorities at the helm of affairs are required to do needful for implementation of law and rules in stricto senso.

15. Silence of petitioner for a period of about 32 months from date of allotment of “the quarter”speaks volumes about his conduct. Petitioner is guilty of contumacious lethargy, laxity and delay in seeking implementation of allotment order, he should have acted with promptitude but he failed. This leads us to an inference that there was a private settlement between the parties otherwise petitioner would have been diligent in seeking possession of quarter. Petitioner should have explained this lethargy or laches in approaching this Court but he failed. In order to get equitable relief from this court, litigant is required to approach this Court with clean hands, which is lacking in the instant case,conduct of the Petitioner disentitles him for grant of any relief under equitable writ jurisdiction.

16. In the given circumstances, since “the Quarter” is under possession of Respondent No.5, the Respondents No 1 to 4 may initiate appropriate proceedings as per accommodation rules. Since there are serious allegations against Petitioner for receiving pagri and monthly rent from Respondent No 5 under a private settlement, in the fitness of things and in order to avoid such illegal practices to happen in future Respondents No 1 to 3 shall enquire into conduct of petitioner as to whether during intervening period he sublet “the quarter”and received pagri. If during inquiry allegations of subletting “the Quarter” are proved to be true, petitioner would not be entitled for allotment of the quarter; which shall stand cancelled. Till the conclusion of enquiry, the allotment in favor of petitioner shall be deemed to be in abeyance, however the quarter will not be allotted to any other employee. If inquiry turns in favor of Petitioner, he shall be put into possession of the quarter in other case SEPCO officials shall initiate a fresh process for allotment of “the quarter”strictly in accordance with law.

Petition stands disposed of with above observations.

Judge

Manzoor