minutesoftile77 meeting - fgehafgeha.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/min-ec-77.pdf · federal...

'.:'.Ie

i(If MINUTES OF TilE 77TH MEETING

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDAT10NAL-ASGHAR PLAZA(1s~ & 2ND FLOOR) BLUE AREA

ISLAMABAD**"**

F.No.18(2)/2004-H F(A)/77 November 29,2004

Subject:- MINUTES OF THE 77-H EXECUTIVE COM~JlITTEE MEETING OF THEFEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATIONHELD ON 23.11.2004.

The 7th Executive Committee meeting of the Federal Government

EmployeesHousing Foundation was held on Tuesday, 23rd November, 2004 at 10.30

A.M in the Committee Room of MIO Housing & Works, Block'S', Pak. Secretariat,

" Islamabad.

2. The minutes of the said meeting are enclosed for your information please.

\~.;~~~( Malik Zafar~bbalf':,-

Law Offi~ - J

1. P.S. to Secretary,M/O Housing & Works, Islamabad.

3. Brig.M. Khalid Sohail Cheema,DirectorGeneral,Pak.PWD, Islamabad.

5. Mr.Muhammad Raziq,SeniorJS(Finance)/FinancialAdvisor(Works),Islamabad.

7. Mr.Sarfraz Ahmed Mirza,DirectorGeneral,HousingFoundation.

9. Mr.Abid Bashir,DeputySecretary(Admn),MIG Housing & Works.

Copyof the minutes also forwarded to:-

2. Mr. Abrar Alam,Joint Secretary(Works),MIO Housing & Works,Islamabad.

4. Mr. S. M. Junaid,Senior Joint Secretary,MIO Interior, Islamabad.

6. Brig. Nusrat Ullah,Member Planning,CDA, Islamabad.

8 Mr. Shahid Hameed,Joint Engineering Advisor,MIO Housing & Works,Islamabad

,

I ~I ~

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Director(Admn), Housing Foundation, Islamabad.

Director(Finance), Housing Foundation, Islamabad.

Director(Technical), Housing Foundation, Islamabad.

Mrs. Shahina Akbar, Legal Advisor, Housing Foundation.

Rana Taj Muhammad Khan, Co-opted Member, H.No. 153-8, SU01,G-6/1-4, Islamabad.

~~$

L;:>- t :.~ _

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATIONAL-ASGHAR PLAZA (1ST & 2ND FLOOR) BLUE AREA

ISLAMABAD****

SUBJECT:- MINUTES OF THE 77TH MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVECOMMITTEE HELD ON 23.11.2004

The 7ih' meeting of the Executive Committee was heid on

23.11.2004 at 10.30 A.M in the Committee Room of the Ministry of Housing &

Works, B-Block, Pak. Secretariat Islamabad. Secretary Housing & Works was in

chair. List of participants is enclosed.

The Chairman welcomed the participants. The Agenda Items were thenI1

2. The meeting commenced with the recitation from the Holy Quran.

discussed.

Agenda Item NO.1 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE 76TH

MEETING.

3. The minutes of the 76th meeting of the Executive Committee were

confirmed.

Agenda Item NO.2 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF THE DECISIONS TAKENIN 76 fH MEETING.

was however, desired that the Housing Foundation should prepare and keep

in the 76th meeting, the Executive Committee generally expressed satisfaction. It

available a list of leading consultants or short list consultants, if necessary, so

~

On presentation of the implementation status of the decisions taken4.

2

that for future projects, alternate consultant could be engaged in accordance with

their competence and suitability.

5. On Agenda Item 7 regarding Review of Progress of Development

Work in Sector G-13, it was decided previously by the Executive Committee that

Member Planning CDA would make a detailed presentation on the development

work already undertaken in G-13. D.G. Housing -Foundation informed the

Executive Committee that since the current meeting is solely concentrated on

legal issues, the presentation would be arranged in the next meeting. The

Member Planning however, briefly appraised the Executive Committee regarding

programme and achievements of the development work.

Agenda Item NO.3: ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES OF PAKISTAN RAILWAYSIN PHASE-IV.

BACKGROUND:

6. In Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme the distribution of quota has

been provided in the brochure and published as follows:-

7. The Housing Foundation observed that the status of Pakistan

Railwayswas not that of the Ministry I Division, Attached Depaj't or Sub-

.-~_. __..>- ---

75%

8%

a) Employees of FederalMinistries/Divisions/Attached Departments andtheir Sub-ordinate offices (declared as such andincluded in the Rules of Business), Member ofRegularly constituted groups/Service of FederalGovt.

b) Employees of Autoncmous/Sem;-Autonomous,Government Organizations and Public SectorCorporations under the Administrative Control ofFederal Government.

J

Ordinate office. Accordingly the Foundation made a reference to the Ministry of

Railways, Cabinet Division and Establishment Division to ascertain the status of

the Pakistan Railways. The Ministry of Railways through their letter dated

19.6.2004 intimated that the Ministry has asked the Establishment Division

(Management Services Wing) to confirm the status of Pakistan Railways. In

response the Management SerVices Wing clarified that" a Sub-ordinate office is

created under the Administrative Ministry and notified in the Gazette of Pakistan.

As such relevant orders / notification of creation Pakistan Railways as a Sub-

ordinate office of the Ministry of Railways should be available with the M/O

Railways being the Administrative Ministry. Management Services Wing of

Establishment Division further clarified that they are not in a position to confirm

the status of Pakistan Railways as a Sub-ordinate office without the availability of

any relevant Notification.

8. The Housing Foundation has clarified that the Railways

Commercial and Traffic group being a regularly constituted group of superior

PLEA OF THE PETITIONERS{ RAILWAY EMPLOYEES):

10. The petitioners were represented by:-

a) Mr. Imtiaz-ul~Haque,Managing Director, RAIL COP

These employees filed Writ Petitions in the Lahore High Court

eligibility of the employees of Pakistan Railways.

that the Executive Committee of F.G.E. Housing Foundation would decide the

Rawalpindi bench. The High Court disposed of these Writs with the observations

9.

category. Other employees fall under the category of (b) i.e. 8% quota.

services of Pakistan fall under the category (a) above aild are eligible in that

b)

4

Mr. Misbahul Aziz,Chief Engineer

They argued that they were Federal Government Employees approved by the

President of Pakistan. They further stated that the Railway Board had never been

an autonomous body, and as a consequence Pakistan Railways was not an

autonomous body. They referred to the Cabinet decision dated 4th Jan 2000,

whereby Railway Board was merged into Ministry of Railways. They however,

could not produce any notification/orders in respect of the status of Railway.

11. They argued that in schedule-III of the Rules of Business, only

Attached Departments are entered while Sub-Ordinate Offices are not listed. Nor

any notification was required for a Sub-Ordinate office. They stated that

according to the definition, a Sub-Ordinate office is one which is neither Ministry,

Division or Attached Department. They pleaded that they should be considered

as Sub-Ordinate office and be made eligible under 75% quota.

EXAMINATION BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

12. The Executive Committee observed that the definition of Sub-

ordinate office put forth in the argument by the representative of the petitioners

was vague. It was observed that in response to the communication dated

19.6.2004 from the Secretary Railways the Management Services Wing of

Establishment Division categorically informed the Ministry of Railways vide U.O.

dated 26.6.2004.

"This is to inform that a SL!j-ordinate office is created under

Administrative Ministry and notified in the gazette of Pakistan.

As such relevant order/notification for creation of Pakistan

Railways as a Sub-ordinate office of Ministry of Railways (as

!

m~n\\~N~.~\" ~~\~~ ~\ \\\~ ~ ~ ,\~~\\~~ \.~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~

available with the t-/linistry of Raiiways."

Thus the argument of the petitioners that no notification is required for declaring

an organization as Sub-Ordinate office does not hold. The Ministry of Railways

could not furnish any copy of notification or orders to the effect.

13. The Legal Advisor of the Housing Foundation pointed out that

Railways was established through an Act (Act 1890) and Railway Board was

created through an Ordinance 1959, hence it is a statutary body. It thus cannot

attain the status of a Sub-ordinate office or an Attached Department.

14. The Executive Committee further observed that the terms and

conditions of the main quota in Phase-II were identical with that of Phase-IV but

since employees of Pakistan Railways did not fall within the parameters of

Attached Department or Sub-ordinate office, they were made ineligible for the

scheme.

CONCLUSION:

15. The Executive Committee after examination of the facts,

documents and the arguments of the petitioners, arrived at a unanimous

conclusion that the Status of Railways as a Sub-ordinate office is not established.

Its employees are accordingly not eligible to be considered under 75% quota for

employees of Ministries, Divisions, Attached Departments & Sub-ordinate offices.

However, keeping a lenient view, they may be considered under 8% quota.

Agenda Item No.4: ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES OF FEDERAL GOVT.EDUCATIONAL INSTiTUTIONS:

BACK GROUND:

16. While examining the eligibility of the employees of educational

institutions, it was observed by the F.G.E. Housing Foundation that under

schedule III of the Rules of Business 1973 (amended upto 15.7.2003), the

following attached departments have been declared as such by the Federal

Government under the Administrative Control of the Ministry of Education.

i) Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions.

ii) Department of Libraries.

iii) Central Copy Right Office.

17. As per booklet printed by the Management Services Wing for the

II ~.

year 2002-2003, the following Educational Institutions have been shown as

Corporation/Body:

i) Federal Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education.

ii) Federal Government Urdu College Karachi.

iii) Federal Govern,Tient LJrdu Science College Karachi.

iv) International Islamic University.

v) National College of Arts.

vi) National Institute of Pakistan Studies.

vii) National Institute of Science and Technical Education.

viii) Polytechnic InstitL,~efor Women.

ix) University Grant Commission.

However the status of the educational institutions was no where declared.

18. A reference was made to the Cabinet Division, Management

Service Wing of Establishment Division and the Ministry of Education for

clarification of the status of the educational institutions, Schools Colleges

Universities etc. under the Rules of Business. After reminders a reply from the

Ministry of Education was received on 13.8.2004, with the clarification that the

Management Service Wing had opined that Federal Government Educational

Institutions working under Federal Directorate of Education are part and parcel of

the attached department of the Ministry of Education. However on repeated

requests, the Ministry of Education could not provide any notification to the effect.

19. The Employees of Educational Institutions filed Writ Petitions in the

Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The High Court disposed of these Writs

with the observation that the Executive Committee of the F.G.E. Housing

Foundation would decide the eligibility of the employees of educational

institutions.

PLEA OF THE PETITIONERS:

20. The petitioners in the Writ Petitions filed by the employees of

Educational Institutions were represented by:-

a) Dr. Safdar, Associate Professor, F.G. College H-9. Ibd.

b) Prof. M. Fayyaz, Principal, F .G. Degree College, Peshawar(Cantt. Garrison).

Federal Government Servants and thus eligible for consideration under 75%

The petitioners based the!( arguments on the fact that they are21.

c) Mr. M. Rafiq Malik, Principal, IMeB, F-8/4, Islamabad.

quota for Employees of Ministries, Divisions / Attached Department and Sub-

ordinate offices.

i I

13.8.2004 opinion of the Establishment Division, Management Service Wing

recorded in a letter dated 6.9.2002 has been quoted that the Federal

22.

8

They also argued that in the Ministry of Education's letter dated

; ,, .'I'

Government Educational Institutions working under Federal Directorate of

Education are part and parcel of the Directorate which is an attached Department

of the Ministry of Education.

23.The representative of the employees of Cantt Garrison Institutes

argued that in the Writ Petition NO.1361/2004 in Peshawar High Court, the Law

Officer of the Housing Foundation has confirmed the status of Cantt Garrison

Institutions as Attached Department.

24. The Petitioners however could not produce any

document/notification in support of their claim of being employees of Sub-

ordinate office.

EXAMINATION BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

25. The Executive Committee observed that no doubt the employees of

educational institutions are government en lployees but the opinion of the

Management Service Wing in its letter dated 6.9.2002 that the Federal

Government Educational Institutions are part and parcel of the Federal

Directorate of Education is vague. Federal Directorate of Education has been

declared as an Attached Department in Schedule-III of Rules of Business.

whereas the Federal Government Educational Institutions have not been

included in the Schedule-Ill of Rules of Business. Also in the same letter dated

6.9.2002 from the Management Services Wing it has been categorically stated

that "The Federal Government Educational Institutions have never been declared

I',If

Ii\

9

as Sub-ordinate office in black and white as mentioned in Federal Directorate of

Education's U.O. Note dated 28.6.2002".

26. It thus transpires that the Federal Government Educational

Institutions are not Attached Departments as opined (not confirmed) by

Management Service Wing as these are not included in the Schedule-III of Rules

of Business. These also do not have the status of Sub-ordinate office as

confirmed by the Management Service Wing.

27. The Ministry of education has not been able to provide ar1Y

notification which could clarify the status of these institutions.

28. As regards the alleged statement of the Law Officer of the Housing

Foundation before Peshawar High Court, parawise comments submitted before

the Peshawar High Court in the Writ Petition were examined which are

reproduced as under:-

"Directorate of Military Lands and Cantonments is an attached

Department of the Ministry of Defence as mentioned in

Schedule-III of Rules of Business."

Thus the Law Officer made no such statement 8S alleged.

29. As regards the status of sub-ordinate offices in respect of Federal

Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrisons) Directorate,

an unsigned copy of notification dated 9th Sept 1975 issued by the Ministry of

Education Islamabad was earlier produced by the applicants but the original

authenticated copy was not produced. No such notification from Ministry of

Defence was also produced.

30. As per distribution of business among the Divisions, inter-alia the

subject under S.No. 8(7) of Schedule-II of the Rules of Business the subject of

10

National Educational Institutions and Organizations has been assigned to the

f.

!Lj';-;

Ministry of Education (Education Division) whereas the Defence Division vide

serial 5(13) ibid has only been assigned the Administrative and Budgetary

Control of Federal Government Educational Institution (Cantts & Garrisons)

Directorate and Institutions. Therefore, the Executive Committee was of the view

that any policy decision in respect of the status of such institutions is to be

decided and notified by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of EducationI1'!

claims that Educational Institutions are part and parcel of its Attached

Department, therefore, the authenticity of the notification dated 9th

Sept 1975 was .!

j~

not established. Moreover the Educational Institutions do not fall in the definition

Institutions from Ministry to the Federal Directorate of Education Islamabad does

of Education regarding transfer of the Administration of Islamabad Model.~'

"

Similarly the notification dated 5th April 1993 issued by the Ministry31.

of offices.

not contain declaration of the status of those Institutions as Sub-ordinate office or

Attached Departments.

CONCLUSION:

32. From the examination of the case, documents relied upon by the

petitioners and examination of the record, the Executive Committee concluded

that the status of the Federal Government Educational Institutions is neither of an

Attached Department nor of a Sub-ordinate office.

~~~~-,~'-

,~~~~~,

employees of Ministries, Divisions, Attached Departments and Sub-ordinate

offices have been made eligible for consideration under 75% quota. Employees

of Cantonment Boards applied under the 75% quota. However, according to the

Housing Foundation, the status of the employees of Cantonment Board was not

that of an Attached Department or Sub-ordinate office of the Ministry of Defence.

34. The employees of Cantonment Board filed a Wiit Petitions in the

Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench for seeking declaration that they should be

considered under 75% quota. The High Court disposed off those writs with the

observation that the Executive Committee of the Federal Government Employees

Housing Foundation will decide the eligibility of the employees of the cantonment

Board and pass speaking order.


35. The petitioners were represen~ed by Mr. Ghulam Abbas, Cantt.

Board Nowshera. Their argument was based on the lines that

(a) the Cantonment Board is directly under the control

of Ministry of Defence and their employees enjoy

the status of Federal Government.

(b) The CLi;Jtonment Board as per Rules of Business

is an "Attached Office" of the Ministry of Defence.

36. The petitioners had no document to establish their claim.

12

EXAMINATION BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

37. The Executive Committee, on examination of the Schedule-III of the

Rules of Business observed that Cantonment Board has not been listed as an

"Attached Office". No documents could be produced to establish that it is a Sub-

ordinate office.

38. Legal Advisor of the Housing Foundation pointed out that the

Cantonment Boards have been formed under Act and its status is that of a local

government. More over the Department of Military Lands & Cantonments have

confirmed in writing that the employees of Cantonment Boards me not Civil

Servants.

CONCLUSION:

39. On examination of the case, the Executive Committee concluded

that the status of the Cantonment Board is neither of an Attached Department or

of a Sub-ordinate office. Its employees are thus ineligible for consideration under

75% quota. They could be considered under 8% quota.

Agenda Item NO.6: ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES OF PAKISTAN TELECOMCOMPANY IN PHASE-IV.

BACKGROUND:

40. As per terms and conditions of the Housing Scheme, the

employees of Ministries, Divisions, Attached Departments and their Sub-ordinate

offices are eligible for considera'ion under 75% quota while those of

Autonomous/Semi-autonomous Government Organization and Public Sector

Corporations under the Administrative Control of the Federal Government are

eligible under 8% quota.

41.

13

Employees of PTCL, who have applied for the scheme, being

employees of the autonomous body are eligible under 8% quota. However these

employees claimed that they were initially inducted in service through FPSC in

T&T Department and were government servants, and the department converted

into an autonomous body but their rights as government employees were

protected.

42. They filed a Writ Petition in the High court seeking declaration that

they should be considered under 75% quota. The High Court disposed of the

said writ with the observation that the Executive committee of the Federal

Government Employees Housing Foundation will decide the eligibility of the

employees of Pakistan Telecom Corporation and pass a speaking order.

EXAMINATION BY THE EXECUTIVE COMM!TTEE:

43. The Executive Committee observed that in order to determine the

eligibility of the applicant, the status of the Oiganization where he is engaged is

required to be ascertained on the cut off date i.e. 15.11.2003. Irrespective of the

fact that the employee entered into servic,; in a Department, the Department with

passage of time has been converted into a Corporation and then a company

which is listed in the records as such. Their claim that their right as Government

Employees were protected, relates to their terms of service. Allotment of plot is

not a part of service condition. On the cut off date they were employees of a

Corporation.

CONCLUSION:

44. The Executive Committee concluded that the petitioners were (and

are) on the cut off date employees of a Company which is an autonomous body.

Hence they are not eligible to be considered under 75% quota.

I-.~.--i4

Agenda Item NO.7: ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEESBROADCASTING CORPORATION.

BACKGROUND:

0;:: PAKISTAN

45. According to the terms and conditions of the Housing Scheme

Phase-IV, the employees of Ministries. Divisions Attached Departments and Sub-

ordinate offices are eligible for consideration under 75% quota while employees

of Autonomous/Semi-Autonomous Bodies are eligible under 8% quota.

46. Employees of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation whc applied in

the scheme, demanded consideration under 75% quota. Since they are

employees of autonomous body, they could not be considered under this quota.

47. These employees filed Writ Petition in Lahore High court,

Rawalpindi Bench claiming that they were Federal Government Employees of a

Government Department which was converted into autonomous body but their

previous rights as Federal Government Employees were protected.

48. The High Court disposed of the said Writ with the observation that

the Executive Committee of the F.G.E. Housing Foundation will decide the

eligibility of the employees of PBC and pass a speaking order.

PLEA OF THE PETiTIONERS:


a) Mr. Aslam Khattak.

b) Mr. Qudratullah, Dy. Controller.

c) Mr. Mohammad lrshad, Deputy Controller.

50. They argued that they entered into service in the Department as

Federal Government employees. On 20.12.1972. the Department was convertedJ;-'7r~~--:'.;.;.::...@.~-,~~-,.~< •..•..•<-~;..:..:~-

15

into Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and their ser.;ices were transferred to the

Corporation through a notification. They claimed that they retained the same

terms and conditions of the service as previously while those who were engaged

directly in the PSC had different service conditions. They claimed that services

are protected under section 12 of PSC Act 1973.

51. One of the petitioner claimed that he was controller and was

directly under the Ministry. He however could not reply to the query as to how a

Controller is posted in the Ministry nor he could plOduce any document to

substantiate his statement.


52. The Executive Committee observed that irrespective of the fact that

the employees were inducted in the Department which subsequently converted

into a Corporation, they are employees of an autonomous body on the cut off

date. Their claim that their previous rights were protected, simply indicates that

their terms and conditions of service were protected. Allotment of plot is not a

part of service condition as per judgement of Supreme COurt laid down in PLD

2002 SC 1079.

CONCLUSION:

53. The Executive Committee concluded that the employees of

Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation are employees of an autonomous body and

thus not eligible for being considered under 75% quota.

16

Agenda Item NO.8: ELIGIBILITY OF JUDGES OTHER THAN JUDGES OFCIVIL COURTS ISLAMABAD.

BACKGROUND:

54. Phase-III of the Housing scheme was launched in July 1995. The

Judges of civil courts Islamabad under a wrong impression by considering

themselves as eligible had also applied in that phase. As per terms and

conditions of that phase they were not eligible to apply. Therefore, their cases

were not considered for allotment. They filed a writ petition fOi seeking

declaration that they should also be accommodated. The Executive Committee

decided to accommodate them in future Phase.

55. The Executive Committee constituted a sub-committee for

formulating the terms and conditions of Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme. The

said sub-committee recommended that Judges of civil courts Islamabad should

be made eligible under 5% quota reserved for employees of constitutional bodies

and professionals. As per terms and conditions of the brochure only the Judges

of Civil Courts Islamabad are eligible, under this quota.

56. After launching of scheme in January, 2004 different Judges who

are posted on deputation to the Ministry of Law, Judges of NAB Court

Rawalpindi, Judges of Banking Courts, Judges of Drug Courts and Judges of

Antiterrorist Courts have made representations and filed writ petitions for making

them eligible also for allotment in Phase-IV. Their main grievance is that there is

discrimination by not treating them 81igible while they are also dealing with the

affairs of the Federal Government.

57. It will be relevant to mention here that High Court in Writ Petition

No. 2520/2004 has a/ready decided that it is in the domain of the Federal

17

Government Employees Housing Foundation to make criteria keeping in view the

availability of plots. It has been further decided that there is no discrimination

class-wise, however reasonable classification is permissible under Law.

58. In case of the writ petitions for seeking declaration that they shouid

also be considered for allotment in Phase-IV of the Scheme, the High Court has

disposed of these writs with the observation that the Executive Committee of

Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation will decide the eligibility of

Judge of different courts and pass a speaking order. Accordingly the case IS

submitted for consideration of the Executive Committee and a decision.

PLEA OF THE PETITIONER:

59. Raja Qamar Sultan, presently working as Section Officer in the

Ministry of Law & Justice appeared before the Executive Committee. He sta~ed

that the action of the Executive Committee (in framing terms & conditions) is not

in accordance with the Law and is repugnant to the fundamental rights and

principles of policy. Instead of acting in aid of precedents, the Foundation is

acting adversely.

60. He pleaded to:-

1. Change the policy/rule pertaining to the allotment of plots to

Judges posted in Islamabad/Rawalpindi ir.c!uding the

petitioner who are doing the job in connection with the affairs

of Federation.

2. It should be applicable to all Judges posted in Federal

Government Islamabad on deputation whatever assignment

is being dealt by them including Judges of N,l\B, Court

]8

Rawalpindi, Banking Court, Drug Court, Anti Terrorist Court

etc.

3. There should be no discrimination and equai treatment

should be given to alike persons serving anywhere.


61. The Executive Committee examined both verbal submission and

the written statement submitted by the Petitioner.

62. The terms and conditions of the scheme were framed by a sub-

63.

64.

Committee constituted by the Executive Committee. The Sub-Committee while

framing the terms and conditions, kept in view the various petitions, judgements

and framed the document to the best of their ability. The document approved by

the Executive Committee was printed and sold. The applicants are governed by

the terms and conditions laid down and contracted. Moreover, the terms and

conditions of the scheme announced have been duly authenticated in a judicial

review by the High Court. No amendment addition/alternation, can be made in a

contract document at this stage.

According to the Article 4.2(i) the Judges of Civil Courts Islamabad

have been made eligible in the brochure. During the currency of the scheme, this

cannot be altered or amended administratively or legally.

CONCLUSION.

The Executive Committee concluded that the te:-ms and conditions

of the scheme cannot be altered at this stage. However, before launching new

f h t k h Iders I petitioners would be obtained forscheme, the views 0 t e s a e 0

and the Judges posted at Islamabad under the Federalincorporation

Government, other than Civil Judges at Islamabad, shall also be G~~red.

J9

Agenda Item NO.9: ELIGIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF HEAVYINDUSTRIES BOARD TAXILLA.

BACKGROUND:

65. In Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme was launched in January,

2004, as per terms and conditions employees of Ministries, Divisions, Attached

Departments and theiF sub-ordinate offices are eligible under 75% quota. The

employees of Heavy Industries Board, Taxila are not employees of an attached

department of Ministry of Defence or Defence Production Division, therefore,

they are being considered under 8% quota. However, they filed a writ petition for

seeking declaration that they should be considered under 75% quota. It will be

relevant to mention here that the High Court has already rejected a similar writ

petition No. 1539/2004 filed by the employees of Heavy Industries Board, Taxila.

66. The High Court had disposed off the instant writ with the observation

that Executive Committee of Federal Government Employees Housing

Foundation will decide the eligibility of the employees of Heavy Industries Board,

Taxila and pass a speaking order.

VIEWS OF PETITIONER:


i) Mr. Maddah Husain Shah, Office Superintendent, HIT.

ii) Mr. Ramzan Hussain, Admn Officer (R) HIT.

The petitioners claimeJ fhat their organization is a sub-ordinate

office of the Ministry of Defence. They however could not produce

any documentary evidence to this effect.

r20

EXAMINATION BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMlTTEE:

68. Heavy Industries Taxilla is.not a Sub-Ordinate Office of Ministry of

Defence or Defence Production Division but enjoys the status of an autonomOL':S

body. The High Court has already rejected a similar Writ Petition NO.1539!2004

filed by the employees of Heavy Industries Taxila.

CONCLUSION:

69. The Executive Committee concluded that in the light of the fact that

Heavy Industries Taxila is neither an attached department nor sub-ordinate

office, the employees cannot be considered eligible under 75% quota, especially

when the High Court has already in an identical writ petition NO.1539/2004

decided the issue and rejected their claim.

Agenda Item NO.10:

BACKGROUND:

ELIGIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF CIViLCOURTS, ISLAMABAD.

70. In Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme launched in January, 2004,

as per terms and conditions, the employees of Ministries, Divisions, Attached

Departments and their sub-ordinate offices are eligible under 75% quota. The

status of the employees of leT is that of an attached department of Ministry of

Interior. The employees of Civil Courts, Islamabad are also eligible under the

said quota. However, they have filed a writ petition for seeking declaration that

they should be considered under separate quota like the employees of Supreme

Court; flJj;17 COL/It B/7d Fede/"B/ Sl7a/781 COL/a Tile 9"uola Ii//" t7e alC'/esalL-"'"

21

employees was reserved in pursuance to the judgement of the High Court. As

the employees of these constitutional bodies are not employees of ~v1inistiies.

Divisions, Attached Departments and their sub-ordinate offices, therefore. a

separate quota was reserved for them. But the employees of Civil Courts,

Islamabad are employees of ICT and their cases will be considered on merit

under 75 % quota, according to their age-wise seniority.

71. The High Court has disposed off the said writ with the observation that

the Executive Committee of the Federal Government Employees Housing

Foundation will decide the eligibility of the employees of Civil Courts and pass a

speaking order.


72. The petitioners were represented by:

1.

2.

Mr. Mohammad Siddique.

Mr. Muhammad Usman.

Employees of Civil

Court, Islamabad.

73.

3. Mr. Abdul Lateef.

They submitted their demand for a separate quota for the

employees of the Civil Courts Islamabad on the analogy of the employees of

Constitutional bodies ..


74.The Executive committee observed that most of the employees of

the Civil Courts Islamabad were employees of leT and thus 'vvereeligible under

75% quota. It however was found that the main question relates to those

employees who were on deputation from High Court Lahore. It was found thEt it

would not be possible to alter the terms and conditions at this stage.

f

CONCLUSION:

75. The Executive Committee decided that such cases would be

considered in the next scheme.

Agenda Item NO.11: ELIGIBILITY OF WORK CHARGE EMPLOYEES OFPAK. PWD IN PHASE-IV.

76. According to the terms and conditions of Phase-IV of the Housing

Scheme, employees of Ministries Divisions, Attached Departments and Sub-

ordinate offices are eligible for consideration under 75% quota Work Charge

employees of Pak. PWD have also applied in the scheme claiming to be

considered under 75% quota. In Phase-III of the scheme, the work charge

employees were ineligible as they are not civil servants. In Phase-IV, there were

doubts about their eligibility. They filed a Writ Petition for seeking declaration that

they should be considered under 75% quota.

the Executive Committee of the Federal Government Employees Housing

77. The High Court disposed off the said writ with the observation that

Foundation will decide the eligibility of the work charge employees and pass a

speaking orders.

78. No representative of the petitioners appeared before the Executive

Committee inspite of a written notice.

79. The case was examined by the Executive Committee. It was

observed that work charged staff is not a part of regular establishment of the

Department and they are paid from the maintenance budget. While they claim

thebenefits of regular establlsl7mel7t t!leya/so approac!l N/RC lo,r seeking ,relief

23

PLEA OF THE PETITIONER:

declaration that he should also be considered under the quota of Law Officers of

ELIGIBILITY OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY ICTISLAMABAD IN PAHSE-IV.

that Executive Committee of Federal Government Employees Housing

82. Mr. Mohammad Mahfooz Paracha appeared in person before the

81. The High Court has disposed off the writ petition with the observation

80. Mr. Mohammad Mahfooz Paracha, District Attorney has filed a writ

Foundation will decide the eligibility of the petitioner and pass a speaking order.

Paracha is an employee of ICT which is an attached department of Ministry of

Officers and Civil Judges, Islamabad under a separate quota.

there is discrimination by not considering under the quota reserved for Law

petition in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi for seeking

Federal Government. In this regard it is stated that Mr. Mohammad Mahfooz

BACKGROUND:

Interior and his case is to be considered on merit under 75%. HeJl.as alleged that

all means part of temporary establishment. The Executive Committee found no

scheme.

argued that there has been discrimination as the quota has been provided for

Agenda Item NO.12:-

merit in their plea and decided that they are ineligible for consideration in the

in service matters. There is no sanctioned strength to regulate them. They are by

consideration under the quota for Law Officers of Federal Government. He

Executive Committee. He pleaded that as District Attorney, he was eligible for

24'--

Law Officers of the Federation posted in the High Court Rawalpindi Bench while

he is being ignored. He pleaded that he should be treated at par with them.

He further pleaded that the quota of District Attorney should also be provided.

DECISION:

83. The Executive Committee observed that at this stage the terms and

conditions of the scheme cannot be altered. Such a provision would be

considered in the next phase.

Agenda Item NO.13:

BACKGROUND:

ELIGIBILITY OF THE JOURNALISTS OFELECTRONIC MEDIA IN PHASE-IV.

84. Phase-I" of the Housing Scheme launched in July, 1996. 3%

quota was reserved for the Journalists on the direction of the Prime Minister. It

was decided by the Executive Committee that allotment to the Journalists shall

be made on the recommendations of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The names which were finalized by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

were issued allotment by the Housing Foundation. In Phase-IV of the Housing

Scheme, the Federal Government has again directed to allocate 3% quota for the

Journalists. The criteria and selection of name to whom allotments to be made

will be finalized by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. In view of this

the Housing Foundation has no concern to finalize the criteria for the Journalists.

85. A writ petition has been filed by the Journalists of the electronic media.

They earlier made a representation to the Housing Foundation and in pursuance

to that they were informed that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting can

only redress their grievances. In the said writ petition they have prayed that the

I

26

CONCLUSION:

90. The Executive committee decided that journalists of electronic

media are not eligible for consideration under Journalists quota. The regular

employees of PTV would be considered under 8% quota for autonomous bodies

subject to fulfillments of other criteria.

Agenda Item NO.14:

BACKGROUND:

PLEA FOR ENCHANCEMENT OF QUOTA FOR:-A) EMPLOYEES OF ELECTION COMMISSION.S) EMPLOYEES OF SHARIAT COURT.C) MEMBERS OF ISLAMABAD DISTRICT

COUR rs BAR ASSOCIATION.

91. In Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme, under the orders of the High

Court dated 15.2.2000, a quota was required to be fixed for employees of

Constitutional Bodes and Lawyers. Accordingly a 5% quota was earmarked for

11 bodies including constitution bodies and professionals.

92. The quota of 5% was distributed amongst various

bodies/institutions on the basis of the number of applicants and keeping in view

the number of petitioners in recent cases in the High Court. The list of applicants

were sent to the Election Commission and the Federal Shariat Court in

accordance with the decision of the High Court.

93. The criteria for determining the allotment which was conveyed to

the Election Commission and the Federal Shariat Court was:-

a) Age wise seniority of the applicant.

b) The applicant had to be a regular employee of the

organization and in service on the cut off date I.e.

15.11.2003.

c) The applicant who has already been benefited from the

Foundation, COA or any other Government agencies was to

be ineligible.

,...-------------------------------- - ----_._- -- -

27

94. The applications of the members of Islamabad District Courts Bar

Association are to be transmitted to the Law & Justice Division in accordance

with the decision of the Executive Committee who shall finalize the list. These

applications have not been sent so far.

95. Some employees of Election Commission, Federal Shariat Court

and decide the matter.


Advocate

Secretary to Chief Justice.

J.A.

Sr. Advisor, Federal ShariatCourt.

Mr. Aurang Zeb Khan.

Mr. Gohar Zaman.

Qazi Fazal lIahi

Dr. M. Aslam Khaki.

b)

d)

c)

a)

and a member of the Bar Association filed Writ Petition in the High Court for

the Executive Committee of the Housing Foundation would examine the issue

96. The High Court disposed of these Writs with the observation that

enhancement of their quota.

98. The petitioner of Election Commission stated that the Writ

Petitioners have already retired and they are likely to consume plots from the

quota of the Election Commission. They argued that there should be a separate

quota for the retired employees or else the quota should be increased.


employees of Federal Shariat Court is more than that of the High Court but less

-The petitioner of the Federal Shariat Court contended that the strength of

quota has been allocated. They pleaded that their quota should be enhanced.

28

99. Dr. As/am Khaki raised the question that Lawyers fall under the

category of professionals while some organizations do not fall in that category.

He pleaded that the quota of other organization should be curtailed and diverted

to the quota for Lawyers.


100. The Executive Committee was appraised that the 5% quota was

earmarked for 11 bodies including constitutional bodies. The distribution was

based on the number of applications received, the judgements of the High Court

in previous petitions. The criteria was also conveyed to the organization that the

criteria for allotment shall be as follows:-

a) Agewise seniority of the applicant.

b) The applicant had to be a regular employee of the

organization and in service on the cut off date of 15.11.2003.

c) The applicant who has been benefited from the Foundation

COA or any other Government Agency was to be ineligible.

101. The allocation of plots to these organizations were made

proportionate to their applicants which for Election Commission is 1:1.39 or 25%

and for Federal Shariat Court is 1:1.9 or 51%. For the Lawyers, the total number

of applications received were 182 and as against this 42 plots have been

earmarked which comes to 1:4.3 or 23%. As against this the main merit quota

has a share of only 9.7%. Thus a reasonable quota has been earmarked for

these organizations.

29

CONCLUSION:

102. The Executive Committee observed that it is not possible to amend

the quota or terms and conditions at this stage. However, t~le Executive

Committee directed the Housing Foundation to examine the possibility of

providing more plots in these cases, if possible

Agenda Item NO.15:

BACKGROUND:

ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES OF NADRA:

103. Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme has been launched. In this Phase

many of the employees of NADRA including employees of former registration

organization have applied for allotment of plots under 75% quota.

104. In Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme, Ministries, Divisions, Attached

Departments and Sub-ordinate Offices (declared as such and included in the

Rules of Business) are placed in 75% quota whereas employees of autonomous

bodies, corporations under the control of Federal Government are placed in 8%

quota.

105. Consequent on the formation of NADRA due to merger of Ex.

Directorate General Registration according to Section 41 (1) of NADRA

Ordinance 2000, the Government asked for option from employee who desire to

join the Authority or those who opt for civil servants. Some of the employees did

not opt the authority. But all the applicants who opt or did not opt are claiming to

be kept in 75% quota.

106. As per Hand Book Edition, 2002-2003 published by the

Management Services Division of Establishment Division, the NADRA has been

included in the list of corporations/autonomous bodies. which was its status on

~

30

where the applicants working or settled in other cities have given one address of

i

II

c~. I

SAME ADDRESS CASES & DUPLICATEAPPLICATIONS:

addition, these applicants shall be debarred from participation in future schemes.

all such cases, the allotment may be cancelled, and seed money be forfeited. In

109. After a detailed discussion the Executive Committee decided that in

be forfeited. In addition to this disciplinary action may be initiated against them.

entered into such deal, his allotment shall be cancelled and the seed money shall

was also published by the Foundation that if any applicant is found to have

involvement investors from the beginning, against which a press advertisement

agreement with anyone cannot be denied but these cases indicate direct

investors/indirect allottee. Thoug;l the legal rights of a person to enter into an

Foundation pleaded that this scenario does not exclude the possibility of

have nominated one person declared as nephew to all applicants. The Housing

Hyderabad, Sukkur etc have not only indicated one address of Islamabad but all

108. The Housing Foundation presented lists of a large number of cases

Islamab~(:t,ln another list, there were a number of applicants working in Karachi,

--'

Agenda Item NO.16:

the cut off date of 15-11-2003. Its employees, accordingly cannot be considered

against 75% quota under the rules. It is further stated that the allotment of plot is

not a part of the terms and conditions of service of a Government employees,

107. The Executive Committee, observed that the NADRA is an

autonomous body as such its employees are not eligible for consideration under

75% quota. They are to be considered under 8% quota.

'--

Agenda Item NO.17:-

BACKGROUND:

31

CLARIFICATION OF SELECTION GRADE:

lII

110. Phase-IV of the Housing Scheme was launched in 2003. As per

terms and conditions of the scheme, the BPS on regular basis_ is to be

considered for the eligibility of the applicants in the respective category. As per

Establishment Division Office Memorandum Annexed i.e. an officer who is placed

in the selection grade of a particular post continues to perform the duties of the

same post. He cannot, therefore, be treated to have been promoted to a high

post. The position of selection grade defined under F.R. 30 is as under:-

A question was raised whether for the purpose of F.R. 30

appointment to the selection grade of a cadre involves the

assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater

importance than those attaching to posts in the ordinary

grade of that cadre. The position ordinary grade and the

selection grade are two grades of one and the same post.

Promotion of a person from the ordinary grade to the

selection grade of a grade does not mean a change of posts

and consequently does not involve assumption of duties and

responsibility of greater importance for the purpose of

F.R.30.

111. It is for consideration whether the selection grade of an applicant

for allotment of plot by the FGE Housing Foundation in the category for which he

has applied or the selection grade be considered as a grant for the benefit of the

incumbents and applicant may be placed in the lower category.

DECISION:

112. The Executive Committee discussed the issue in detail. It was..

observed that the consideration for allotment to a government employees is

based on substantive appointment. The selection grade is not a promotion to that

scale. It was decided that the cases of such applicants should be placed in the

downgraded (substantive) scale to which they belonged.

Agenda Item NO.18: ENTITLEMENT OF THE CATEGORY ACCORDINGTO BPS.

113. The Housing Foundation submitted that in a number of cases the

BPS stated by the applicant is above their actual scale, on the cut off date i.e.

15.11.2003. These are, either deliberate attempt to mislead or based on their

promotion subsequent to the cut of date.

114. The Housing Foundation presented two options:-

a) To cancel all such applications for mis-declaration.

Or b) To down grade them to their actual category.

115. The Executive Committee after a detailed discussion, constituted a

Sub-Committee as follows:-

i)

ii)

Mr. S.M. Junaid,Senior Joint Secretary,MIG Interior.

Brig. Khalid Suhail Cheema,Director General,Pak. PWD, Islamabad.

Convener

Member

JJ

iii) Mr. Nazir Ahmad Nasim,Director(Ad min),F.G.E. Housing Foundation

Member

iv) Malik Zafar Abbas,Law Officer,F.G.E. Housing Foundation.

Member

116. It was decided that the Sub-Committee shall examine all the cases

and furnish its recommendations to the Executive Committee in next meeting.

119. The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the chair.

118. The Housing Foundation withdrew the agenda item.

APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER DUE OATES:

CONCEALMENT OF HOUSE / PLOT / PURCHASEINHERITED/GIFTED UNDER 10% QUOTA.

Agenda Item NO.19:

117. The Executive Committee observed that last date for submission of

applications had been suitably extended to accommodate all prospective

applicants including those who had been on Hajj. The Executive Committee

found no grounds for submission of the applications after the cut off date and

entertained.

decided that no such application received after the cut off date are is to be

Agenda Item NO.20:

.>-1.

LIST OF PARTICIPA~;TS

Mian Muhammad Jamil.Secretary,MIO Housing and Works.

2. Mr. Abrar Alam.Joint Secretary(Works),MIO Housing & Works.

i Brig. M. Khalid Sohail Checma.Director General,Pak. PWD.

4. Mr. S. M. Junaid.Senior Joint Secretary(IV),MIO Interior.

S. Mr. Muhammad Raziq.Senior Joint Secretary/F A \VorksFinance DivisIOn.

6. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Mirza,Director General.Housing Foundation.

7. Brig. Nusratullah.Member Planning. CDA

S. Mr. Shahld Hameed ..Jomt Engineering Advisor.MIO Housing and Works.

9. Mr. Abid Sashir.Deputy Secretary( Admn).Ministry ofI-lousing & Works.

Co-Opted Members.

10 Raila Taj Muhammad Khan.

IN ATTENDANCE

1 I. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Nasim,Director(Admn), Housing Foundation.

12. Mr. Hasnat A Qureshi.Director(Finance), Housing Foundation.

13. Malik Zafar Abbas.Law Officer, Housing FO'Jnd:ltion.

14. M;'s. Shahina Akbar,Legal Advisor,F.G.E. Housing Foundation.

minutesoftile77 meeting - fgehafgeha.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/min-ec-77.pdf · federal...

Documents