IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL  
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.654 of 2007 
(On 
appeal 
from 
the 
judgment 
dated 
25.07.2006 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in CP 788 of 2005) 
 
 
Khushdil Khan Malik 
…Appellant 
VERSUS  
 
Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi Cantt. and others 
..Respondents 
 
 
 
Appellant:  
 
 
In person 
 
For respondents No.1-2: 
Mr. Waqar Rana, Addl. A.G. Pakistan 
 
For respondent No.3: 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, ASC/AOR 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
29.5.2015  
 
 
 
 
  
JUDGMENT  
 
  
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— Leave to appeal was granted to 
the appellant on 14.02.2007 inter alia on the following grounds:- 
 
“After 
hearing 
the 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
petitioner, we are inclined to grant leave inter alia on the 
questions as to whether petitioner is an employee of the 
attached department of the Defence under the direct 
control of Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, 
and was entitled to become a Member of Defence Housing 
Authority as noted in the order dated 18.08.2006.” 
2. 
  
The grievance of the appellant is that, the Defence Housing 
Authority, Islamabad decided to accommodate its Defence Employees 
and those of the attached departments by allotting them residential 
CA 654/2007 
2 
plots but through balloting. The appellant being a member of the 
attached department, serving in the Directorate of Education of the 
Garrison, under the direct control and management of the respondent, 
submitted an application to respondent No.3 when, by then he was 
posted as Regional Director, Human Rights in Balochistan, attached to 
Law, Justice & Human Rights Division but on deputation basis from the 
Ministry of Defence (Directorate of Education Garrison) and was falling 
within the category-J. On deposit of membership fee, he became the 
member of the Society/Authority.  
3. 
  
Subsequently, amendment was made in the category-J, in 
which the appellant had applied, vide letter dated 18.05.2005 by 
respondent No.3 where the words, “and officers of Defence 
Division” were also added, making them all eligible for the allotment 
of the plots.  
4. 
  
The balloting as was scheduled, took place and the 
appellant was found successful in the process. He also deposited the 
initial seed/advance installment of money with respondent No.3 
however, without any show-cause notice to the appellant, the plot 
allotted to him on 10.06.2005 was cancelled on 24.10.2005 on 
fallacious ground/plea that the appellant was not paid emoluments 
from the Defence Estimates.  
5. 
  
The appellant challenged the validity of this order in the 
High Court of Balochistan at Quetta through Constitution Petition 
No.788 of 2005, however, without applying judicial mind with deep 
thought to the legal issue, involved herein, his petition was dismissed.  
CA 654/2007 
3 
 
In the instant case, the Ministry of Defence/Defence Department 
was represented by the learned ASC and also by Mr. Waqar Rana, 
Additional Attorney General.  
6. 
  
The decisive queries made from the respondent’s counsel 
were, as to whether the Directorate of Education of Garrison is not the 
attached department of the Ministry of Defence, however, on many 
occasions and hearings, the learned ASC representing the respondents 
could not furnish convincing and plausible explanation.   
7. 
  
It is a fact, undeniable in nature that the appellant is 
serving in the attached department of the Ministry of Defence. The 
wholesome budget is allocated to the Ministry of Defence and is placed 
at the disposal of Military Accountant General (MAG) for further 
disbursement on defence expenditures and other emoluments of the 
Armed Forces of Pakistan and those civilian officials, who are serving 
in the departments attached to the Defence Services.  
8. 
  
The 
department 
of 
the 
appellant 
is 
under 
the 
administrative 
control 
and 
management 
of 
the 
Ministry 
of 
Defence/Defence Directorate. In this regard, we have an ironclad proof 
on record in the shape of letter of the General Headquarters, IGT & E’s 
Branch, PGEI (C/G)Dte, Sir Syed Road, Rawalpindi, issued to the 
Manager Press, Printing Corporation of Pakistan, University Road 
Karachi-5, copies of which were forwarded to all the relevant officers 
of the Defence. Through this letter, the appellant was promoted from 
BPS-18 to BPS-19 w.e.f. 30.03.2001 and was posted to FG Sapper 
Boys High School, Risalpur. On the foot of the letter, the issuing 
authority is Col. Hameed Sarwar. This letter clinches the entire 
CA 654/2007 
4 
controversy with regard to the status of the appellant beyond any 
shadow of doubt that he is serving a department attached to the 
Defence Services and is not under the administrative control and 
management of the Education Ministry or Directorate of Education of 
Federal Government.  
9. 
  
Learned Additional Attorney General and the learned ASC 
for respondent No.3 repeated their inapt arguments and made crude 
attempts to show that being a civilian officer, albeit serving in the 
Education Corp of the Garrison, the appellant was not at all belonging 
to the Defence Services and was not covered by that definition, 
entitling him to become member of the Defence Housing Authority, 
much less getting plot in the scheme.  
10. 
  
It is an admitted fact that the Defence Services is allocated 
separate budget to meet the expenditures incurred directly on the 
Defence Services and allied/ancillary wings/attached department.  
11. 
  
The letter, earlier referred to, is a clear manifestation of 
fact that the appellant, for all intents and purposes, belongs to 
Education 
Corp 
of 
the 
Garrison and is 
under 
the 
effective 
administrative control and management thereof, otherwise the order 
of his promotion, contained in the letter ibid, would have been issued 
by the Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan and not by Col. 
Incharge in active service of the Defence Services. Therefore, it is held 
that the appellant is competently a member of the Defence Housing 
Authority and is covered by the definition given in the relevant 
provision of the Defence Housing Authority Ordinance and Public 
Advertisement Notice, issued in the Press on 21st April, 2005.  
CA 654/2007 
5 
12. 
  
The plea of the appellant is getting further fortification 
from 
the 
letter 
of 
approval 
of 
the 
Establishment 
Division, 
communicated through the Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi vide 
No.2496/D-18/96 
dated 
October 
8, 
1996. 
The 
appellant 
is 
undisputedly paid from the Defence Estimates through internal 
arrangements of the Defence Services and in this way, he has no 
nexus or any connection with regard to his service and other 
emoluments and benefits with the Ministry of Education, Government 
of Pakistan.  
13.    
The concise statement/synopsis filed by the respondents is 
of no help to the replying respondents in view of what we have held 
above on the basis of established facts and the law applicable to the 
same.  
14. 
  
There is another aspect of the matter, which shall not go 
unnoticed. In this case, the appellant was successful in the balloting 
process and got a plot; he deposited the seed money/installment, 
therefore, a decisive step was taken in the matter and vested right had 
already accrued to the appellant, hence unilateral cancellation of plot 
from his name without any show-cause notice to him, clearly amounts 
to condemning him unheard against the principle of natural justice. By 
now, it is well embedded and well entrenched principle of justice that 
the principle of natural justice shall be construed to be a part and 
parcel of every Statute even if it does not contain it and shall apply to 
all proceedings, whether judicial or administrative in nature. In this 
regard, reliance may be placed on the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. 
P.I.A.C and another (1994 SCMR 2232). Therefore, on this score too, 
CA 654/2007 
6 
the impugned order being against the principle of natural justice is not 
sustainable in law.  
15. 
  
For the afore-mentioned reasons, this appeal is allowed; 
the impugned order of the respondents, dis-allotting the plot from the 
name of the appellant vide order dated 24.10.2005 is held to be in 
disregard of law, principle of Justice and without lawful authority and 
the same is set at naught. It is further directed that the same plot 
shall be restored/allotted to the appellant or if that is not possible then 
some other plot of the same market value and of the same size be 
allotted to the appellant, of course, subject to payment of the dues.  
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge   
Announced in open Court on ………………at Islamabad  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Nisar/* 
Not Approved For Reporting. 
