KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday issued notices to parties concerned on two petitions related to a dispute about allotment of an official residence to former president Dr Arif Alvi as post-presidency entitlement.

A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC headed by Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon directed the counsel for both sides as well as respondents to appear on August 31 and assist it on the subject matter.

The bench in its order noted that two connected petitions, filed last year, were arising out of a dispute regarding a government accommodation about Bungalow/House No 5-A located in Bath Island.

It also noted that Dr Alvi has filed a petition and claimed entitlement to the subject house under the President’s Pension Act, 1947, contending that after completion of tenure in the presidency, he was allotted the house in question as his official residence for lifetime.

However, the bench further observed that the former president has been unable to obtain possession as the premises remained occupied by one of the respondents, Dr Shahab Imam, whose allotment was cancelled by the estate office.

It is alleged that Dr Imam had challenged the cancellation order in 2023 and obtained an interim order without impleading the former president as a party and such order has continued for a prolonged period, thereby preventing Dr Alvi from enjoying his statutory entitlement, it added.

The bench said that in the second petition, Dr Imam had impugned the cancellation of his retention/allotment of the same house and contended that he had allowed retention of accommodation after voluntary retirement upon completion of qualifying service under the Finance Division in 1991 which was duly approved by the competent authorities in 2018.

It also noted that as per the second petitioner, the subsequent withdrawal of the policy through the Finance Division in 2020 could not retrospectively affect his vested rights and, citing a judgement of the Supreme Court, he also submitted that the government was bound by its promise and cannot cancel the benefit already granted.

He further submitted that his departmental appeal and subsequent proceedings remained unresolved on technical grounds without adjudication on merits and pleaded to declare the impugned cancellation order as illegal, it added.

Adjourning the hearing till Aug 31, the bench in its order also said, “To appreciate the aforesaid contentions let notices be issued to all concerned to appear and assist this court on the subject issue”.

Published in Dawn, August 8th, 2026