Gopal Garg vs State of H.P.

Surjit Singh, Judge

Petitioner is serving as Clerk in the Directorate of Higher Education at Shimla. His father was also in government service and on account of his being in service, he was allotted a Type II set in Kasumpti, Shimla. Father of the petitioner died in harness. His mother, also being in government service, was allotted the aforesaid accommodation, occupied by his father. Now, the petitioner''s mother has also retired on 31.10.2010. Before her retirement, petitioner made an application, Annexure PA, which is dated 6.8.2010, for allotment of the aforesaid accommodation to him, as he too is in government service and serving at Shimla. In May, 2011, after the retirement of his mother, petitioner''s application, Annexure PA, was rejected. Order was conveyed to him through Annexure PF. He then filed the present petition, seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to allot the accommodation, in question, to him, as per Rule 8.2 of the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences General Pool Rules, 1994.

Respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that petitioner was appointed as Clerk in a government department in the year 1996 and remained posted at Shimla up to March, 2007 and during that period, he had been drawing House Rent Allowance (HRA). It is stated that in March, 2007, he was transferred to Kunihar and in February, 2010, he was again posted at Shimla. It is stated that though from February, 2010, after his re-transfer to Shimla, petitioner had not been claiming HRA, it was only by way of a ploy to claim government accommodation occupied by his mother. It is also stated that petitioner had been living with his mother during the period of his earlier posting at Shimla from 1996 to 2007 but claiming HRA and because of this act of misconduct on his part, he has rendered himself ineligible for allotment of accommodation, in question.

Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, in which it is stated that when posted at Shimla, he joined LL.B. Course in the year 1998 and, therefore, took on rent some accommodation near the University and started residing sometime in that rented accommodation and sometime with his mother. It is also stated that later on his elder brother got married and because of that, he often lived in rented accommodation near the University.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record.

Rule 8.2 of the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences General Pool Rules, 1994 reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the provision of Rule 7, adhoc allotment on out of turn basis may be made by the House Allotment Committee to an officer/ official on the following grounds:

In the event of death or retirement of a Government Servant, to his wife/ husband or son or unmarried daughter, provided that the retired or the deceased Government servant was in occupation of Government accommodation at the time of retirement or death. Such allotment shall not be made in a category higher than category to which the ward of the deceased or retired Government servant is entitled.

Provided that such wife/husband/son or unmarried daughter was serving the H.P. Government at the time of retirement or death of Government servant and residing with him/ her and not claiming the HRA for the last three years or since the date of appointment/ transfer in the station whichever is relevant.

A bare reading of the rule shows that a son, residing with the allottee of government accommodation is eligible for adhoc allotment, in case he had been residing with his father or mother, the allottee of government accommodation, and had not claimed HRA for the last three years, which means during three years immediately preceding the date of retirement of the allottee or since the date of appointment / transfer in that station, whichever is relevant.

In the present case, petitioner had not been claiming any HRA during the last three years for residing in Shimla. He had been transferred to Kunihar in March, 2007. He was re-transferred to Shimla in February, 2010 and after his re-transfer to Shimla, admittedly, he did not claim HRA. Thus, he fulfills all the conditions, prescribed in Rule 8.2 aforesaid, for adhoc allotment of the house, in question.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed and impugned order of rejection of the request of the petitioner, which is Annexure PF, is quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner, made in February, 2010 vide Annexure PA, in the light of observations made hereinabove, within a period of two months. Till final decision is taken in terms of the aforesaid direction, petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises.