Rajesh Pal Singh vs Prasar Bharati Corporation And ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1413 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner had been employed with All India Radio as a Peon 11th November, 1996. Prasar Bharti Corporation came into being on 23rd November, 1997. Petitioner went on deputation to Prasar Bharti Corporation. It is admitted position between the parties that he continues to be on deputation with Prasar Bharti Corporation.

3. Petitioner's mother was an allottee of quarter no.81-A, Aram Bagh, New Delhi being Type A General Pool Accommodation since she was employed with Director General, All India Radio. Petitioner's mother superannuated on 30th September, 2002. It is also the admitted position that the petitioner had been residing all along with her mother and had not claimed any separate house rent allowance. In other words, upon superannuation of petitioner's mother, he was eligible for allotment of accommodation in his favor. The only stumbling block which came into the way of the petitioner was his deputation to Prasar Bharti Corporation. In other words, respondents proceeded on the basis that petitioner now serving Prasar Bharati Corporation was not entitled to continue with the occupation or to have regularization and allotment in his favor.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of the Kerala High Court in Anupama Kararth and Ors Vs. UOI and Ors wherein the court considered the status of the employees of Central Government who were working with Prasar Bharati Corporation. It was observed as under:-

'' In the absence of any order actually transferring the employees to Prasar Bharathi Corporation of India as contemplated under Section 11 their status is deemed to be that of Central Government employees specially since they are working as deputationist. Hence the petitioners are entitled to be considered for admission as Central Government Employees coming under Category-1. There will be a direction to the 4th Respondent to admit the students treating them as falling under Category 1, if they are otherwise entitled.''

5. In the above case, the question was whether the applicants were entitled to be considered for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya as wards of Central Government employees? The inference to be drawn is that petitioner's status is of a Central Government employee on deputation to Prasar Bharati. Learned counsel for respondent has also not been able to show any tenable cause against regularization of the allotment of quarter no.81-A in favor of the petitioner in place of his mother, who had superannated. It is also not in dispute that this is the lowest category of accommodation and the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the same.

6. Learned counsel submits that in terms of office memorandum dated 18th June, 2003, no fresh allotment including change was admissible to the employees of Prasar Bharati Corporation. Further that benefit of ad hoc allotment/regularization on retirement/death ground will not be admissible to the wards of last allottee in case ward is employed in Prasar Bharti. This submission proceeded on the assumption that the person seeking allotment or regularization is an employee of the Prasar Bharti Corporation. As noted earlier, petitioner is an employee of Central Government, on deputation with Prasar Bharti Corporation whereas employees of Doordarshan and All India Radio have been allowed under this office memorandum to retain existing General Pool Residential accommodation allotted to them for a period of five years beyond 21st November, 2002. Accordingly, it is clear that employees of Doordarshan or All India Radio who were working with Prasar Bharti are in any case entitled to retain it for a period of five years. I am informed that stage of election of becoming an employee of Prasar Bharti Corporation is yet to come

7. In this view of the matter, a writ of mandamus be issued to respondents allotting quarter no.81-A, Aram Bagh, New Delhi in favor of the petitioner w.e.f date of superannuation of his mother subject to petitioner complying with requisite formalities.

It is made clear that since the stage of exercising option of finally joining Prasar Bharti Corporation has not yet come, the tenure of petitioner's allotment would be subject to such exercise of option and applicable policy therefore.

Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.