Baljit Singh vs Chandigarh Administration and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of respondents No. 1 and 2 in allotting government accommodation to the employees of respondent No. 3. On 16.7.2013, the following order was passed:-

On 20.12.2012 the following order was passed:-

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. The same is permitted to be taken on record. Concededly as per the reply filed by Sh. Rahul Gupta, Secretary, House Allotment Committee, U.T. Chandigarh, CITCO has no authority to retain the houses after the 1996 Rules but amazingly, no action seems to have been taken by the respondent-Administration to retrieve these houses from CITCO. Let a responsible Officer of the Chandigarh Administration remain present in the Court to explain as to why this situation has been permitted to persist in gross violation of the Rules when the employees who are entitled to government accommodation are suffering while the employees of the CITCO who are not entitled to government accommodation continue to occupy them. Adjourned to 16.1.2013.

Further allotment to the employees of CITCO shall remain stayed.

On 16.01.2013 the following order was passed:-

It is not disputed that CITCO employees do not fall in the category of eligible office under the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, UT Administration Chandigarh, on instructions from Mr. Rahul Gupta, Assistant Estate Officer-cum-Secretary House Allotment committee, U.T. Administration informs this Court that UT Administration has asked CITCO to hand over vacant possession of the houses to the UT Administration for placing them in the General Pool and in reply thereto, CITCO has requested the administration for allotment of land and financial assistance for construction of houses for its employees. This Court is informed that there are 48 such houses occupied by CITCO employees at present. These houses are stated to fall in Categories "C" and "D" whereas the petitioner who is working as Data Entry Operator in the Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, is entitled to accommodation under Category "D".

Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel submits that throwing the 48 occupants on the road would certainly be suddenly a human problem. Therefore, at the same time, it would need to be balanced with the rule. To achieve this end, it would take some time to resolve the issue. He, therefore, prays for time to submit an additional affidavit, detailing the steps being taken in this regard and in terms of the order of this Court dated 20.12.2012. Let additional affidavit be filed within eight weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

List on 18.3.2013.

Thereafter on 18.03.2013 the following order was passed:-

Mr. Kaushal prays for further time to comply with the order dated 16.01.2013.

Adjourned to 15.05.2013.

On 15.05.2013 the case was adjourned for today.

Even today learned Senior Standing Counsel makes a prayer for grant of more time to ''solve this problem''. I find that enough indulgence has been shown by this Court and, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are actually in contempt of the order of the Full Bench of this Court. Let respondents No. 2 and 3 appear in person on the next date.

Adjourned to 31.07.2013.

A copy of this order be handed over dasti to learned Senior Standing Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

Thereafter, on 31.7.2013, the following order was passed:-

Learned Senior Standing Counsel states that as per Rule 22(2) of The Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 it was specifically provided that those ineligible employees who had been allotted houses under the 1972 Rules would be entitled to retain those houses till death/transfer/dismissal/retirement and on such event occurring, those houses would revert back to the Chandigarh Administration. He has also fairly accepted that despite this moratorium some houses thereafter were not surrendered to the Chandigarh Administration but were realloted to the ineligible employees and prays for two weeks'' time to give the respondents a final opportunity to rectify this illegality.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel prays for exemption from personal appearance of respondent No. 2 on the ground of his illness. Prayer is accepted. Respondent No. 3 is present in person. The presence of respondents No. 2 and 3 is not required on the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 21.08.2013.

A period of more than 3 = months has elapsed but even today a request has been made for grant of more time.

Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has informed the Court that out of 47 houses, 40 houses are occupied by persons who had been allotted houses under 1972 Rules. Counsel for respondent No. 3 has further clarified by stating that in some cases persons were allotted houses under 1972 Rules but thereafter some of such persons surrendered the houses originally allotted to them and were given other houses (from amongst the 47 houses in occupation of CITCO employees).

It has to be kept in mind that a Full Bench of this Court in Court on its own motion Vs. Adviser to the Administration, Union territory, Chandigarh and others, , had held as follows:-

We have considered these arguments as well, and find that Mr. Lehri''s assertions have clear merit. Rule 2(e) read with rule 5 of the Rules clearly envisage allotment to only eligible government servants, that is the employees of the State of Punjab or Haryana or the U.T. Administration located in Chandigarh and the offices who have been declared by the Administration to be eligible for accommodation under these rules. It is, therefore, apparent that the allotments made to the employees of the Central Government Undertakings etc. or to the Central Government employees or to employees of Semi Government or Government controlled Corporations of the State of Punjab and Haryana and of the Union Territory such as CITCO do not have the sanction of the rules. However, keeping in view the fact that allotments have been made to such persons in some cases years ago, we direct that those who have already been allotted residential accommodations will not be disturbed, yet no further allotment be made to persons so employed.

The U.T. Administration challenged the said decision of the Full Bench before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. During the pendency of the matter before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, 1996 Rules were framed and were approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In those rules, advisedly employees of respondent No. 3 were not made eligible for allotment of government accommodation. However, still 7 houses which were in occupation of CITCO employees were not surrendered to the Chandigarh Administration on vacation and fresh allotments were made.

Counsel for the respondents, apart from seeking time repeatedly, have argued that the petitioner would not be entitled to a government house even after these houses are surrendered to the Chandigarh Administration because he does not have the requisite seniority and have consequently prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. Be that as it may, once such stark-even brazen-infraction of law which is admitted by the respondents is brought to the notice of the writ Court, the Court would not refuse to intervene in the matter on the ground that a particular petitioner may not be entitled to the relief claimed. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that all fresh allotment of government accommodation made to CITCO employees after the promulgation of 1996 Rules shall stand cancelled. At the cost of repetition, this order would not apply to those persons who were originally allotted houses under the 1972 Rules and are either retaining the same or are retaining some other houses in lieu of the houses originally allotted. The respondents are directed to ensure that proceedings to retrieve the said houses by the Chandigarh Administration are initiated within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.