Smt. Krishna vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1496 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. RULE.

2. Petitioner is the daughter in law of one Mr. Hari Singh who was employed as a Safaiwala with the Government and was allotted type-II quarter bearing No. D-78, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. Mr. Hari Singh retired on 31.7.1996. By order dated 4.11.1997, the respondent No. 1 cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid quarter in his favor. In the meantime, on 3rd June, 1997 the petitioner, who was also employed as a Safaiwala with the respondent, had made an application for regularisation of the said quarter in her name. The application of the petitioner was duly forwarded by her office for regularisation of the quarter. Request of the petitioner for regularisation of the quarter in her name was rejected on the ground that in terms of the circular issued by the Directorate of Estate for concessional ad-hoc allotment of general pool accommodation admissible to the eligible dependents/relations of Government employees on their retirement, the daughter-in-law was not mentioned as one of the eligible dependent/relation. The respondent No. 1 thereafter initiated proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupant) Act for eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid quarter. The respondent No. 2 on 8th December, 1998 passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of eviction, passed by the Estate Officer, before the Additional District Judge on 22nd December, 2000. On 26th December, 2000, respondent No. 1 issued an office Memorandum including the daughter-in-law as one of the dependents on the Government employee and thus eligible to ad hoc allotment of the quarter which was allotted in the name of her father-in-law. This Memorandum was made effective from 7th December, 2000. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 1st February, 2001, aggrieved of which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the daughter-in-law of the original allottee has now been included in the office order as one of the dependents of the Government servant who was originally allotted the quarter, there was no reason as to why the quarter should not be regularised in the name of the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on the office order dated 1st May, 1981 whereby the Directorate of Estate in exercise of the powers conferred upon him in respect of allotment of Government residence has decided that when the Government servant, who was an allottee of the general pool accommodation retires from service, his/her son, any unmarried daughter or wife or husband, as the case may be, be allotted accommodation from the General Pool on an ad hoc basis provided the said relations is a Government servant eligible for allotment of accommodation in general pool and had been continuously residing with the retiring Government servant for three years immediately preceding date of his retirement. The decision was made effective in cases of Government servants who had retired on or before 7th November, 1979. It was further provided in that office order that in case of those Government servants who had retired prior to 7th November, 1979, the concession of making ad hoc allotment to an eligible dependent would be considered on fulfillment of the old condition i.e. the dependent was residing continuously for a period of six months with the retired Government servant immediately prior to his retirement. It was further observed in the office order that this concession would also be extended on request to the eligible dependent of those officers who had vacated the Government accommodation after 1st May, 1978. It is submitted that though the circular dated 26th December, 2000 has been made effective from 7th December, 2000 however, on the anology of the circular dated 1st May, 1981 the concession should also be extended in the case of those Government servants who had retired prior to 7th December, 2000 and the person who had made an application for ad hoc allotment and was a dependent in terms of the circular dated 26th December, 2000 and had resided with the retiring Government employee for a period of six months prior to his retirement.

4. There appears to be force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the Circular dated 26th December 2000 makes even the daughter-in-law of the retiring employee as a dependent to be eligible for concessional ad hoc allotment of the accommodation which was in possession of the retiring Government employee, I do not see any reason as to why the representation of the petitioner for allotment should not be considered taking into consideration the circular of 1st May, 1981 where benefit of concessional allotments were extended even to those employees who had retired prior to 7th November, 1979. The respondents cannot make discrimination in the matter of allotment of quarters to its employees by applying the office order dated 1st May, 1981 to one set of employees and not allow the same to others who are similarly placed. Petitioner, in my opinion, was also entitled to be granted the benefit in terms of the office order dated 1st May, 1981.

5. I accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for concessional ad hoc allotment of the quarter which is in her possession after the retirement of her father-in-law, keeping in view the office order of 1st May, 1981 and 26th December, 2000. Till such time the representation is considered, she will not be evicted from the premises. In case the representation is not considered favorably by the respondent, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law in the appropriate forum. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.