S.S. Sharma, Ias vs Directorate Of Estates
2003 Latest Caselaw 817 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. Rule.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that he is willing to argue the matter on the basis of the pleadings already filed and he need not file a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent in view of the fact that the only question that is to be considered is whether the Office Memorandum No.12035(24)/77-Pol.II dated 15.2.84 is applicable to the petitioner or not. Counsel for both sides agree that interpretation of this Office Memorandum will decide the entire issue in dispute. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final argument and is being disposed of finally.

3. The petitioner who was a Secretary to the Government of India, retired on 31.8.2002. At that point of time, the petitioner was in occupation of Government accommodation, namely, D-1/191, Satya Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner has continued in occupation of the said premises. On 3.1.2003, the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Manipur State Finance Commission. This appointment of the petitioner was by the Governor of Manipur under Section 3 of the Manipur State Finance Commission Act 1996. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner has been appointed Chairman of the said Commission in Manipur, the said Office Memorandum would apply and, in terms of which, he would be permitted to retain the present accommodation at Satya Marg, Chanakya Puri. The Estate Officer under the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued notice and ultimately passed an order dated 9.7.2003 whereby the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the said premises. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Estate Officer's order, filed an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act. The question of the Office Memorandum being applicable to the petitioner was specifically raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge in the aforesaid appeal. After considering the arguments put forth on both sides, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the said Office Memorandum would apply to only those Government officials who were still in service and posted to the State and Union Territory of North Eastern Region. He held that the same did not apply to retired Government servants and accordingly, the petitioner, being a retired Government servant, did not fall within the four corners of the said Office Memorandum and could not take advantage of the same.

4. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal upholding the eviction order of the Estate Officer. Now, the only question to consider here is whether the Office Memorandum was at all applicable to the petitioner. For the purposes of determining this question, the relevant extracts of the said Office Memorandum are set out as under:

" Subject:- Retention of general pool accommodation/allotment of alternative general pool accommodation to civilian Central Government employees posted to States and Union Territories of North-Eastern Region.

The Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) have in their O.M.No.20014/3/83-E. IV, dated 14.12.1983, issued orders regarding various allowances and facilities admissible to Civilian Central Government employees serving in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunanchal Pradesh, Mizoram and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The question of granting permission for retention of general pool accommodation or allotment of alternative general pool accommodation to such officers who are posted to the aforesaid States/Union Territories and who desire to keep their family at the last station of posting has been considered and the President is pleased to decide as follows:-

(a) In the case of an officer, who may be in occupation of accommodation up to Type E in the `General Pool' at the last station of his posting, alternative accommodation of one type below to the type of accommodation, as may be available, may be offered to him if he requests for retention of accommodation for the bona fide use of the members of the family. However, if such an officer was in occupation of Type B accommodation, he may be permitted to retain the same accommodation. For an officer, who may be in occupation of Type E-1 and above, alternative accommodation in Type E may be provided."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Not applicable to officials posted to P.S. Us., A.Bs and G.Cs., etc.- The orders are applicable only in case the officials are posted to Central Government offices, offices of the Union Territories and these orders will not be applicable in cases where officers are posted to Public Sector Undertaking, Government Companies, Autonomous Bodies, etc.

(Applicable to C.G. Employees deputed to State Governments. - It is clarified that the orders issued from time to time for retention of accommodation/allotment of alternative accommodation in the case of Central Government officers posted to States/Union Territories and extended by the order of 26.3.1987 are also applicable in cases where Central Government employees are sent on deputation of State Governments."

5. From the aforesaid, it would be apparent that the Office Memorandum is in relation to " Civilian Central Government Employees posted to State and Union Territories of North Eastern Region." The petitioner is admittedly not a civilian Central Government employee. He retired from service on 31.8.2002. Accordingly, the Office Memorandum clearly is inapplicable to the petitioner and no advantage can be taken by him under the same. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 1.8.2003. Accordingly, no interference is called for. Rule is discharged. Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is given one weeks' time to hand over the possession of the premises to the respondent.