IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB  
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
Civil Petitions No.2297 & 2298 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 02.05.2018 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petitions No. 1712-P 
and 1585-P of 2018).  
 
Tanveer Musharraf. 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner (in CP.2297/18) 
Shaukat Ali. 
 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner (in CP.2298/18) 
versus 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief 
Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others. …Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in both cases) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Younis Thaheem, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
(in both cases) 
 
 
For the respondent(s): Barrister Qasim Wadood, Addl. A.G. K.P. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Taimur Khattak, D.S. Judicial. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Nur Rehman, Establishment Officer, K.P. 
 
 
 
 
(in both cases) 
 
Date of hearing:  
27.02.2019.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.- Through this single order, we 
propose to decide Civil Petition No.2297 of 2018 and Civil 
Petition No.2298 of 2018, which are directed against the same 
judgment and common questions of law and fact are involved 
in both petitions.  
 
2. 
 
Tanvir Musharraf, the petitioner in Civil Petition 
No.2297 of 2018 is the son of Jahangir Khan, who was 
serving as Superintendent in the Establishment Admin 
Department, 
Civil 
Secretariat, 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa, 
Civil Petitions No.2297 & 2298 of 2018 
 
2
Peshawar. He was allotted a government accommodation 
bearing House No.E-5, Civil Colony, Warsak Road, Peshawar. 
On his retirement from service, the said accommodation was 
allotted to his son (the petitioner, Tanvir Musharraf) under 
retired son quota because at the relevant time he was serving 
as Superintendent in KP Public Service Commission.  
 
3. 
 
Shaukat Ali, the petitioner in Civil Petition 
No.2298 of 2018 is the son of Mian Sahib Jan, who was 
serving as Secretary/Member, KP Public Service Commission. 
He was allotted House No.B-5, Civil Colony, Warsak Road, 
Peshawar. On his retirement, the aforesaid house was allotted 
to the petitioner, who was working as Social Security Officer 
in the Employees Social Security Institution, Peshawar.  
 
4. 
 
Pursuant to a judgment of the Peshawar High 
Court, Peshawar, dated 20.09.2017, passed in Writ Petition 
No.1503-P of 2011, out of turn/unauthorized allotments were 
cancelled and notices were issued to the allottees. Similar 
notices were issued to the petitioners calling upon them to 
vacate 
the 
government 
accommodations 
under 
their 
occupation. They filed representations before the competent 
authority. The same were not decided. Consequently, they 
approached the Peshawar High Court in its constitutional 
jurisdiction. Their writ petitions were dismissed, vide 
impugned 
judgment 
dated 
02.05.2018. 
Hence, 
these 
petitions.  
 
Civil Petitions No.2297 & 2298 of 2018 
 
3
5. 
 
The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued 
that the High Court did not comprehend the real controversy 
and misinterpreted the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 
(“the Act”) and rules framed thereunder. He further 
maintained that allotments made under the previous law had 
specifically been saved under Section 16 of the Act and Rule 
37(2) framed thereunder. However, this aspect of the matter 
was ignored by the High Court. It is further maintained that 
there has been an illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the High 
Court which has erred in law in holding that the impugned 
notices for cancellation and vacation of accommodations 
occupied by the petitioners was just and legal.  
 
6. 
 
The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa, has defended the impugned judgment and 
argued that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.  
 
7. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the 
petitioners as well as the learned Law Officer and have gone 
through the record. We have at the very outset noticed that 
under the provisions of the Act, government accommodation 
can only be allotted to public office holders. Section 2(n) of 
the Act defines the “public office holders” as follows:- 
“2(n).- “public office holder means” 
 
(i)   a civil servant, appointed under the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa, Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Act No. XVIII of 1973), including such 
civil servants of the Federal Government, posted and 
working at Peshawar under the Government, as may 
be prescribed;  
Civil Petitions No.2297 & 2298 of 2018 
 
4
 
(ii)  a Provincial Minister, an Advisor and Special 
Assistant to the Chief Minister; 
(iii)  Judges of the Peshawar High Court including its 
employees; and  
 
iv)  employees of the Provincial Assembly of the 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa”.  
 
8. 
 
We have specifically asked the learned counsel for 
the petitioners to show us that the petitioners meet the 
eligibility criteria of being “public office holders” as per 
definition given in the Act. It may be noted that the petitioner 
in Civil Petition No.2297 of 2018 is an employee of KP Public 
Service Commission while the petitioner in Civil Petition 
No.2298 is an employee of Employees Social Security 
Institution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not 
seriously contested the fact that the said persons are not civil 
servants having not been appointed under KP Civil Servants 
Act, 1973 nor did they fall in the category of Civil Servants of 
the Federal Government posted and working in Peshawar, 
under the Government, as provided in Section 2(n) of the Act.  
 
9. 
 
It is clear and obvious to us that notwithstanding 
the definition or status of “civil servant” given or conferred 
upon any employee of the Federal or Provincial Government 
under any law or judgment, the benefit of the provision of the 
Act is available only to a special class of civil servants namely 
those who have been appointed under KP Civil Servants Act, 
1973 and Civil Servants of the Federal Government posted 
and working in Peshawar under the Government. In order to 
avail the benefit of the Act, an employee must be a civil 
Civil Petitions No.2297 & 2298 of 2018 
 
5
servant as defined in the Act. The petitioners do not fulfill this 
criterion. The above being the situation, neither of the 
petitioners is governed by the Act nor can they claim benefit 
of the same. Even otherwise, the High Court has held that the 
petitioner in Civil Petition No.2298 of 2018 had also been 
allotted a house out of turn which is an additional ground 
supporting the stance of the respondent-Government that the 
said petitioner is not entitled for allotment of government 
accommodation.  
 
10. 
 
We find that there is no error either of fact or law 
in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The learned 
counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to point out 
any legal, procedural or jurisdictional error, defect or flaw in 
the impugned judgment that may persuade us to interfere 
therein in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of 
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.  
 
11. 
 
For reasons recorded above, we do not find any 
merit in these petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. 
Leave to appeal is refused.     
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
ISLAMABAD. 
27.02.2019 
Not Approved For Reporting 
ZR/* 
Civil Petitions No.2297 & 2298 of 2018 
 
6