IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
  
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sh. AzmatSaeed 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
Mr. Justice IjazulAhsan 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.2108, CMA NO.4937 OF 2018 
IN CP NO.2108 OF 2018, CP NO.2299, CMA NO.5180 
OF 2018 IN CP NO.2299 OF 2018, CP NO.3749 OF 
2018 AND CPs NO.3785 TO 3790 OF 2018. 
(On appeal from the judgments dated 02.5.2018, 13.9.2018 of the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in WPsNos.1715-P/2015, 
1714-P/2015, 2345-P/2018,  2909-P/2018 , 2910-P/2018, 2911-
P/2018, 
3776-P/2018, 
3777-P/2018 
and 
3778-P/2018, 
respectively) 
 
 
1. 
Dr. Tariq Iqbal 
 
 
(in CP No.2108/18) 
2. 
RiazulHaq 
 
 
(in CP No.2299/18) 
 
3. 
Attaullah Jan 
 
 
(in CP No.3749/18) 
4. 
Muhammad Iqbal 
 
 
(in CP No.3785/18) 
 
5. 
M. Amir Khan 
 
 
(in CP No.3786/18) 
 
6. 
JamshedAkhtar 
 
 
(in CP No.3787/18) 
 
7. 
Fayyaz Ahmed 
 
 
(in CP No.3788/18) 
8. 
Dr. Aftab Ahmed 
 
 
(in CP No.3789/18) 
 
9. 
Adnan Malook 
 
 
(in CP No.3790/18) 
 
 
… Petitioner (s) 
 
 
Versus 
 
The Govt. of KPK thr. Secy. 
Administration 
Peshawar 
& 
others 
 
 
 
… Respondent (s) 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.2 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
 
: 
 
Mr. NaveedAkhtar, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
(in CP No.2108/18) 
 
 Mr. M. YounisThaheem, ASC 
(in CP No.2299/18) 
 
 
 Malik ManzoorHussain, ASC 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
(In CPs Nos.3749, 3785-3790/18 ) 
 
For the Applicant(s) 
 
 Mr. M. Shahid Kamal, ASC  
(in 
CMA 
No.10119/18 
in 
CP 
3749/18 & CMA 10133/18 in CP 
3785/18) 
 
For the Respondents 
 
: Barrister QasimWadood, Addl. 
AG KPK 
Mr. TaimoorKhattak, DS, KPK 
Mr. 
Noor 
Rehman, 
Estate 
Officer 
(in all cases) 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 27.02.2019 
 
  
 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
  
 
Sh. 
AzmatSaeed,J.-Through 
this 
judgment, it is proposed to dispose of the above 
titled cases, which involve common questions of 
law. 
2. 
 
The 
lis 
before 
us 
entails 
the 
interpretation 
and 
legal 
effect 
of 
various 
provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial 
Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) 
Act, 2018, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 
2018” and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.3 
 
Residential 
Accommodation 
at 
Peshawar 
Procedure for Allotment Rules, 2018, hereinafter 
called as “ the Rules of 2018” 
3. 
 
Some of the Petitioners before us claimed 
to have secured the allotment of Government 
Accommodation under the legal dispensation that 
existed prior to the promulgation of the Act of 
2018and seek protection thereof. Reference, in 
this behalf, has been made to Section 16 of the 
Act of 2018, which reads as under:- 
“16. Saving.--- Subject to the provisions of 
this Act, any order passed or action taken or 
arrangement made in relation to the Provincial 
buildings before the commencement of this Act 
and not inconsistent with the provisions of this 
Act, shall be deemed to have been taken under 
this Act.” 
 
4.   
A bare reading of the aforesaid provision 
makes it clear and obvious that previous 
allotments 
are 
only 
safe 
if 
they 
are 
not 
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 
2018and are subject thereto. Therefore, it appears 
that such allottees/occupants must establish 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.4 
 
their right under the new law in order to protect 
their allotments/occupations.  
5. 
 
Some of the Petitioners are the offspring 
of retired or deceased employees, who were 
allotted residential accommodation under the 
previous dispensation. The relevant provision 
applicable to such allottees/occupants is Section 
7(5) of the Rules of 2018, which is reproduced 
herein below for ease of reference.  
“7. 
Management and Allotment of residential 
accommodation.--- 
 
(5) 
Government may reserve a special quota of 
residential accommodation for allotment to the 
son, daughter or spouse, as the case may be, 
of the public office holder, who has been died 
or retired from service, as the case may be. 
Allotment under this sub-section shall be 
made in a manner as may be prescribed.” 
 
6. 
 
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision 
reveals that the Government is authorized to 
reserve quota of residential accommodation for 
allotment to the offspring and spouses of retired 
or deceased employees, if they are otherwise 
eligible under the Act of 2018.What needs to be 
established from the record is whether the 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.5 
 
Petitioners before us, who claim allotment under 
the aforesaid provisions are, in fact,in occupation 
of 
residential 
accommodation 
of 
the 
quota 
reserved in terms of Section 7(5) of the Act of 
2018. 
This 
factual 
position 
has 
not 
been 
established on record one way or the other and 
remains to be ascertained,thus, an exercise must 
necessarily be carried out by the Secretary, 
Administration, 
Government 
of 
KPK, 
which 
hasbeen impleaded as one of the Respondents. 
7. 
 
The other aspect of the matter in the 
instant cases involves the interpretation of Section 
7(3) of the Act of 2018. The said provision is 
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 
“7. 
Management and Allotment of residential 
accommodation.--- 
 
(3) 
Where Government provides resources to any 
Government Department, office or agency, as 
the case may be, for construction of its own 
pool of residential accommodation or where 
such 
Government 
Department, 
office 
or 
Government agency already has such a pool, 
its employees shall cease to be eligible for 
residential accommodation under this Act:” 
 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.6 
 
8. 
 
Before  embarking upon the exercise for 
attempting to interpret the aforesaid provision, it 
may be appropriate to restate the cardinaland well 
settled principle of interpretation, which requires 
that a purposive rather than a literal approach of 
interpretation be adopted as has been held by this 
Court inter alia, in the judgment reported as 
Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of 
Finance and others v. M/s. Noori Trading 
Corporation (Private) Limited and 14 others (1992 
SCMR 710), Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt) Limited v. 
Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, 
Government of Pakistan and 6 others (PLD 1998 
Lahore 90) andSaif-ur-Rehman v. Additional 
District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and two others 
(2018 SCMR 1885). 
9. 
 
Furthermore, an overview of the Act of 
2018would suggest that it confers the benefit of 
residential accommodation to those, who hold 
public offices and are eligible in terms thereof. The 
tone and tenor of the Statute is clearly beneficial 
in 
nature,therefore, 
its 
provisions 
must 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.7 
 
necessarily be interpreted liberally so as to 
advancethe benefit rather than curtail it.Such is 
the law, as laid down by this Court in the 
judgments 
reported 
as 
Lahore 
Development 
Authority through D.G., Lahore and another v. 
Abdul Shafique and others (PLD 2000 SC 
207),Pakistan Engineering Co. Limited, Lahore 
through Managing Director v. Fazal Beg and 2 
others (1992 SCMR 2166) andSaif-ur-Rehman 
(Supra) 
10.  
It appears that certain Government 
departments, offices and agencies in the KPK have 
their own pool of residential accommodation or 
such accommodation is provided to them by the 
Government of KPK. A bare reading of the afore-
quoted provision would reveal that a person 
otherwise eligible under the Act of 2018, who is 
employed in such Government department, office 
or agency with its own pool of accommodation, is 
not eligible for residential accommodation in the 
general pool. Such an interpretation would be 
reasonable, fair and beneficial, as a person cannot 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.8 
 
be entitled to residential accommodation, of both 
the office/department and that of the general pool 
thereby gaining an unfair advantage over other 
public office holders. Every eligible person must 
stand in either one queue or the other to wait for 
his 
turn 
for 
allotment 
of 
residential 
accommodation. The problem has arisen in the 
instant cases where there is indeed a pool of 
accommodation of a department, office or agency 
but such residential accommodation is designated 
for a particular officer only and all employees of 
the said department, office or agency are not 
entitled to be considered for such allotment. Such 
residential accommodation in case of Health 
Institutions is for those required in emergency, 
while the other accommodation is reserved for the 
Chowkidarsetc. only.  
11.  
It 
is 
in 
the 
above 
backdrop, 
the 
contention of the learned Additional Advocate 
General, KPK that a person employed by any 
department, office or agency that has its own pool 
of residential accommodation is not entitled or 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.9 
 
eligible for allotment of accommodation in the 
general pool even though he is also not entitled to 
be 
considered 
for 
allotment 
of 
residential 
accommodation in the department, office or 
agency where he is currently employed cannot be 
occupied. Such an interpretation would disentitle 
such persons from residential accommodation 
both in the department, office or agency as well as 
in the general pool. Such interpretation could not 
be considered to be either logical, purposive or 
beneficial.When viewed in its true perspective,it is 
clear and obvious that Section 7(3) of the Act of 
2018 merely provides that a public office holder 
can either be entitledto or eligible for allotment in 
the general pool or in the pool of his own 
department, office or agency if it has such a pool 
but a public office holder not eligible for allotment 
under the pool of his department, office or 
agency,is obviously, eligible for allotment in the 
general pool, as it cannot be the intention of the 
legislature to totally exclude such public office 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.10 
 
holder from any and all official residential 
accommodations.  
12.  
The learned Additional Advocate General, 
KPK has alluded to the possibility that a person, 
who is currently not entitled to a residential 
accommodation of his department may by transfer 
or promotion attain such right. This possibility, of 
course,cannot be ruled out but it has been 
catered for under Rule18 of the Rules of 2018, 
which provides conditions of retention of such 
accommodation and reiterates the obvious bar to 
occupation of more than one accommodation.  
13.  
In view of the above, it is clear and 
obvious that true and fatefulinterpretation of the 
Act of 2018, more particularly, Sections 16, 7(5) 
and 7(3) respectively and Rule 18 of the Rules of 
2018 is that:- 
(a) All allotments of residential accommodation 
made prior to the promulgation of the Act of 
2018 must pass the test of being consistent 
and subject to the provisions of Act of 2018, 
asthe saving provision i.e. Section 16 of the 
Rules of 2018 is of such limited amplitude. 
 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.11 
 
(b) The offspring and spouses of the retired or 
deceased public office holders,  if otherwise, 
eligible may be allotted or retain official 
residential accommodation in such capacity, if 
the residential accommodation in question is  
part of the quota reserved, in this behalf,  in 
terms  of Section 7(5) of the Act of 2018. 
 
(c) 
That a person i.e. the public office holder will 
only 
loose 
entitlement 
of 
residential 
accommodation in the general pool if he is 
employed in a department, office or agency 
with 
its 
own 
pool 
of 
residential  
accommodation and such public office holder 
is entitled to be considered for such allotment. 
In case of such residential accommodation in 
the pool of the department, office, agency is 
designated and the person does not hold  such 
designation, he is entitled to be allotted and 
can 
retain 
allotment 
of 
residential 
accommodation in the general pool.In case of 
subsequent 
transfer 
or 
promotion 
to 
a 
designation, entitling him to 
the official 
residential accommodation in the pool of the 
said department, office or agency, his rights 
would be governed obviously by Rule 18 of the 
Rules of 2018. 
 
 
14.  
The entire body of necessary facts ineach 
and every case is not available before us, hence, 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.12 
 
we 
are 
handicapped 
from 
deciding 
and 
adjudicating upon each of these petitions.  
15.  
In 
this 
view 
of 
the 
matter, 
the 
consolidated 
impugned 
judgments 
dated 
02.5.2018& 13.9.2018 of the learned Peshawar 
High Court and the orders of the department in 
questionare set aside. The entire matter of 
allotment or retention of such allotments, as the 
case may be, is remanded to the Secretary, 
Administration, Government of KPK, who shall 
decide individual cases after hearing all the 
concerned parties in accordance with the law and 
in terms of the observations made herein above. 
The Petitioners may retain their residential 
accommodations in the meanwhile subject to the 
decision by the Secretary concerned in terms of 
this judgment. 
16.  
These Civil Petitions as well as Civil 
Misc. Applications are disposed of,  in the above 
terms. 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
CPs No..2108/2018 etc.13 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
 
      Judge  
27th February, 2019 
 
 
Approved for Reporting 
 
Safdar/*