Delhi High Court
Ravi Shanti Bhushan vs Directorate Of Estates & Anr. on 13 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.5871/2014
% 13th January, 2015
RAVI SHANTI BHUSHAN ......Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, an employee of the Supreme Court, is presently
living in government accommodation allotted to him in Mohammedpur,
Moti Bagh, New Delhi. Petitioner is allotted Type-I category
accommodation. Petitioner prays that since the accommodation at
Mohammedpur has been declared to be dangerous and has to be vacated,
petitioner should now be granted a fresh accommodation of Type-III
category to which the petitioner is entitled to. Petitioner places reliance
upon a memo of the government dated 5.9.2005 read with the Office
Memorandum (O.M.) dated 15.9.2014. The sum and substance of the claim
of the petitioner is that though he has got Type-I category accommodation,
he should now be granted Type-III accommodation and which
accommodation of Type-III should be granted as out of turn allotment by
overlooking those persons who have been standing prior in queue than the
petitioner for Type-III category accommodation.
2. The question is that whether the petitioner is entitled to out of
turn allotment to Type-III category accommodation though he is presently
having only Type-I category accommodation.
3. The memo dated 5.9.2005 relied upon by the petitioner for out
of turn allotment and O.M. dated 15.9.2014 read as under:-
"Memo dated 5.9.2005
(x) Allocation of Vacancies of General Pool residences
Order of Preference:
(a) Officers whose houses have been declared dangerous should
get first priority and alternative accommodation should be provided
to them in the same area as far as possible, failing which in
adjoining/nearby localities.
(b) Officers occupying quarters required to be vacated for
redevelopment or other public purposes in the same area, failing
which in adjoining/nearby localities.
(c) After meeting the requirements of (a) and (b) above, the
remaining vacancies should be allotted alternatively to officers on
the change list and to officers sanctioned out of turn and ad hoc
allotments/change.
Office Memorandum
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Guidelines for allotment of alternate general pool
residential accommodation in the Automated System of
Allotment on declaration of a house unsafe/dangerous or re-
development of government colonies or GPRA required for any
other public purpose.
The undersigned is directed to refer the subject mentioned above
and to say that henceforth allotments of alternate general pool
residential accommodation to allottees on declaration of a house
unsafe/dangerous or re-development of government colonies or
GPRA required for any other public purpose shall be done through
Automated System of Allotment [ASA] with effect from 16.9.2014.
2. It has been decided with the approval of the competent
authority that in case of complete government colonies declared
unsafe/dangerous, the allottees of such colonies shall be placed
enbloc over the unified (change/initial) waiting list for same type of
accommodation and the allottees may make preferences of houses in
the ASA for allotment.
3. In cases where individual houses in Government colony are
declared as unsafe/dangerous the alternate allotment of
accommodation to be made on priority on the following basis:
a) Vacancies in the same locality or nearby locality to be
identified for priority allotment where such occupants would be
given priority in the same type of accommodation over unified
(change/initial) waiting list.
b) The allottee of ground floor accommodation may apply for
ground floor and above and the allottee of first floor above may
apply for first floor and above and allotment will be made
accordingly.
c) Equal number of identified vacancies will be placed for
allotment in ASA in relation to number of such unsafe/dangerous
houses.
4. The request of allottee, whose residential accommodation
declared as unsafe/dangerous by the concerned maintenance agency
shall be entered into 'Unsafe/Accommodation Register' of ASA by
the concerned Allotment Section.
5. It has been further decided that where a house declared as
unsafe/dangerous for living, the declaration will be by an officer not
below the rank of an Executive Engineer, CPWD and he should
satisfy himself before issue of certificate of declaration. The
unsafe/dangerous house(s) may be reported to NIC, Directorate of
Estates online by CPWD on such declaration.
6. It has also been decided that where an entire government
residential colony is declared unsafe/dangerous for living by CPWD
or required to be vacated for redevelopment, a certificate of
declaration from DG, CPWD will only be accepted along with the
work plan to make the colony habitable within a period of 3 years in
consultation with Works Division of Ministry of Urban
Development.
7. This OM supersedes the instructions of the Directorate of
Estates O.M. No.12035(1)/91-Pol.II dated 21.2.1991 and O.M.
No.12035/16/2005-Pol.II dated 5.9.2005."
4. I do not find anything in this memo dated 5.9.2005 and O.M.
dated 15.9.2014 which allows a person to get out of turn accommodation of
a higher category although the government is ready to give the petitioner
same category accommodation from which the petitioner will be shifted on
account of the said accommodation having been declared as dangerous.
Surely, petitioner cannot break the queue with respect to the list created for
Type-III category employees and when the petitioner will be entitled to
Type-III category accommodation as per the seniority list created, the
petitioner will be given Type-III category accommodation in accordance
with the rules.
5. Petitioner, who appears in person, argues that government itself
has violated its O.M. by giving out of turn allotment but the argument is
misconceived because Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive
concept and assuming there are any other alleged violations by the
government (and which of course have not been clearly established before
this Court) the same cannot give any legal right to the petitioner merely
because allegedly there may have been alleged illegal out of turn allotments.
6. Dismissed.
JANUARY 13, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
