[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Dr. Manglo Rani & Anr vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3239/2026 & CM APPL. 15587/2026
Date of decision: 13.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
DR. MANGLO RANI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr Karmanya Singh Choudhary,
Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chandan Deep Singh,SPC; Mr.
Rishav Kashyap, GP, Mr. Amitabh
Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Aman Sinha,
Advocates for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay Panel
Counsel GNCTD, Mr. Madhur
Advocate, Ms. Purnima Jain
Advocate & Ms. Shivpa Taneja
Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for directions to the Union of India to regularise the
Accomodation Quarter No. 821, Type II, Sector-3, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
110022 (said accommodation) in favour of the petitioner.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:17.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:31:14 KUMAR KAURAV
2. Vide order dated 02.02.2026, in view of the petitioners' submission
that they would prefer to stay in 'Type-II' accomodation although they were
entitled to a higher category of 'Type IV' accommodation, and that
regularisation has been allowed in similarly situated cases, the Court had
directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim and pass a fresh
order. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have passed a
speaking order on 03.03.2026. In the said order, it is recorded that the said
accommodation has been placed in 'Departmental Pool' with effect from
07.02.2008 and is reserved to be allocated to employees of the Delhi Police.
3. According to Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2018 spouses/wards
of employees working in the eligible office of the Government of NCT of
Delhi may be considered for regularisation or accommodation, subject to
applicable terms and conditions. However, as per the footnote of the said
Office Memorandum, school teachers and other staff posted in the Delhi
Administration are not eligible for allotment of General Pool Residential
Accommodation. The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum is
extracted below, for reference:
"N.B.2: All Branch Offices/Regional Offices Administration Offices of
the Offices of Delhi Admn. Mentioned in Para 'B' of this list will also be
treated as eligible offices. The Delhi Admn. School Teachers and other
staff posted in schools will, however, not be eligible for allotment of
General Pool Residential Accommodation."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Petitioner no.1 is a school teacher working with the Delhi
Administration. Therefore, it is seen that as per the said Office
Memorandum, the petitioner does not have any vested right of allotment of
the said accommodation in her favour.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:17.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:31:14 KUMAR KAURAV
5. The parity claimed by the petitioner with the case of another
Government employee has been addressed by the respondent. Learned
counsel for the respondent submits that the said employee was an employee
in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi
which is an eligible office for allotment/regularisation of GPRA. Therefore,
according to him, the said case is different from that of the petitioners.
6. In view of the aforesaid, no illegality is found in the impugned
decision. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 13, 2026/P
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:17.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:31:14 KUMAR KAURAV
