ISLAMABAD-The Islamabad High Court Tuesday reserved its verdict in the illegal allotment case of a government house to the brother of Chairman Senate Sadiq Sanjrani.
A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Babar Sattar reserved the verdict on the petition filed by Sumaira Nazir Siddiqui who challenged the arbitrary cancellation of a house allotted to her by the housing ministry.
During the hearing, complete record of the allotment of the house to Raziq Sanjrani was submitted to the court while the bench directed the Ministry of Housing, Petroleum and Establishment Division to submit their detailed reply in this matter.
However, Sanjrani’s lawyer informed the court that the house allotted to him has been surrendered.
At this, Justice Sattar remarked that how did the idea of surrendering the house come now. He also asked for the record of Sanjrani’s appointment to be submitted in the court, along with the contract.
Raziq’s counsel stated that Sanjrani was appointed as representative of the Ministry of Petroleum under Balochistan Rights Initiative and later Sendak Metals Company regularized him.
Justice Sattar said that the Ministry of Housing officials should tell who is paying the cost for the house. The ministry representative explained that a voucher is issued to the company for payment every three months.
He said that it is a company, and the prime minister, chief minister and ministers have nothing to do with it. He added that the matter is not before the court but the court cannot close its eyes.
Sanjrani’s lawyer then requested the court to grant some more time to vacate the house. The bench said that try to understand, it would be better for you to vacate that house as soon as possible.
Justice Sattar mentioned in his previous order that the counsel for Sanjrani stated that his client was appointed pursuant to notification dated 16.07.2011 as Managing Director of Saindak Metals Limited, Balochistan, through a notification by the Establishment Division and has been issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. He stated that respondent No.10 made an application to the Federal Government for government accommodation without any concealment even though his contract doesn’t state anything about his entitlement to government accommodation.
The counsel added that subsequently in the year 2013 under rule 6(7) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, his application for government accommodation was approved. He stated that respondent No.10 has been afforded government accommodation being considered a BPS-22 employee since 2013.
When the court asked the employment status of Sanjrani, his counsel stated that Sanjrani has been appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the company under Section 187 of the Companies Act, 2017. When asked as to who pays for the rent in lieu of the accommodation, the learned counsel for respondent No.10 seeks some time to assist the Court.
Then, he directed the relevant Joint Secretaries from the Ministry of Energy (Petroleum Division) and the Establishment Division to appear alongwith the original record of the appointment of Sanjrani to enable this Court to understand his entitlement to government accommodation.
He remarked that the appointment of a CEO or MD of a Company under Section 187 of the Companies Act, 2017, can be for a maximum period of three years. “Prima facie, such employee is a company employee and not a Federal Government Servant, and such contract can be terminated by the Board of Directors of the Company under provisions of the Companies Act, 2017,” added the judge.
He also asked that how then can such employee be treated as a permanent employee of the Federal Government and granted BS-22 equivalent accommodation for 33 years?