Mehipal, Head Constable and Others vs Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory and Others

R.L. Anand, J.—By this order, I will dispose of five writ petitions bearing No. 15719 Mahi Pal v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 14345 of 1989 Parveen Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 9930 of 1994 Balwinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 14268 of 1989 Randhir Singh v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 8346 Deepak Singh v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors. as in the opinion of this court all the five writ petitions can be disposed of by this judgment as common question of law and fact is involved. For the sake of facts, I am gathering from CWP No. 15719 of 1991 Mahi Pal v. Chandigarh Administration and others.

Shri Mahipal filed the writ petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the government residential accommodation (XII type) in the name of the petitioner after making a transfer of the allotment from the name of his father Shri Ami Chand to the name of the petitioner as Shri Ami Chand has retired from services on 31.10.1990 and as per policy decision of the Chandigarh Administration and directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the house in question till he is allotted a government residential accommodation.

The case set up by Mahi Pal is that his father Ami Chand was also working in Union Territory Police department and retired as head Constable on 31st October 1990. He as well as his father had unblemished record to their credit during the entire span of service. The father of the petitioners Sh. Ami Chand was allotted government house No. 12/1535-A in Sector 20-B, Chandigarh and the petitioner being son of Amin Chand was residing with his father in the same accommodation. The petitioner joined the police department of Union Territory on 9.5.1980 and had been residing with his father Amin Chand. As the father of the petitioner was going to retire on 31.10.1990, therefore, he applied for the transfer of allotment of House No. 12/1535-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh in his name. However, vide letter dated 30.4.1990, respondent No. 3 informed the office of the petitioner that since the Chandigarh Administration had stopped allotment of general pool accommodation to U.T. Police personnel, the request of the petitioner for the transfer of allotment of the said house in his name could not be exceeded to. The petitioner again submitted the application on the required form through his office i.e. SSP, U.T. Chandigarh which was sent to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 26.10.1990 with the request that the transfer of the house be made in his name from the name of his father who was going to retire on 31.10.1990. It is further the case of the petitioner Mahi Pal that his father also made the request that house be allotted in the name of his son as he was going to retire but nothing has been done by respondent No. 3. A letter was also written by Senior Supdt. of Police, Chandigarh to the Chairman, house Allotment Committee on 4.6.1991 but to no effect. In the meanwhile, the father of the petitioner was served with notice u/s 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and order was passed against his father for the vacation of the premises within 15 days. This order was passed on 13.5.1991. The petitioner further relies upon judgment dated 7.6.1991, passed by this Court. The request for making allotment of the house allotted to his father was made by the petitioner as per policy decision dated 4.7.1988 and the policy decision dated 13.2.1989, Annexures P-ll and P-12. In the alternative, it is also pleaded by the petitioner that he can retain the government accommodation as per S.R.317-A.M./26 of the Rules. The petitioner had been residing with his father since 1980. In short, the case set up by the petitioner is that since he is the son of the retired government employee working in the police department and that he himself was working in the police department and was residing with his father, therefore, he is entitled to retain the government accommodation even after the retirement of his father out of turn.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. The stand taken up by respondent No. 3 is that he informed the petitioner about the stopping of the allotment of the accommodation from the General Pool Accommodation to the police personnel as per the instructions of Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration which are contained in letter No. 5245/-JH(4)-83/6898 dated 25.3.1983 (Annexure R-l). As per this letter in future no accommodation will be allotted to the police personnel out of General Pool Accommodation as these officials are allotted accommodation from police pool accommodation, however this will not apply in the case of I.G, S.S.P., S.P., D.S.P. as the accommodation to these officials has not been constructed in the police pool accommodation. No allotment was made to the police personnel after the Instruction dated 25.3.1983. No accommodation can be allotted to the petitioner out of the general pool. As per the policy, the allottee could retain the accommodation for a period of 2 months after the retirement i.e. upto 31.12.1990. He did not vacate the premises, as a result of which respondent No. 3 had to file the ejectment proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. As the petitioner could not be allotted accommodation out of the general pool, hence police decision contained in Annexure P-l 1 and P-12 can not apply. The judgment which has been relied upon is not applicable to the petitioner. With the above named defence, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

I have heard Sh. S.D. Bansal, counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance, I have gone through the records of this case.

The sole point for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to the accommodation which was allotted to his father or not? Before I reply to this proposition, first of all I will have to say what are the rights of a person who is allotted the government accommodation by virtue of his service. He is neither a lessee nor he can derive any right or title in the property. It is a licence and concession which is given to a public servant because of the facts he is discharging a duty towards the government and public and the government for the convenience of said public servant and in order to improve this efficiency allots government accommodation perhaps with the object that the public servant may not be in a position to take private premises on rent against a higher consideration in the shape of rent etc. No public servant can seek accommodation as a matter of right and this concession is given to such public servant till he attains the age of superannuation and after that he is supposed to surrender the actual and physical possession to the government within a reasonable time as specified by the government from time to time. If a person is allotted the accommodation by virtue of his father in service, it will perpetuate the possession of a family by allotting the accommodation to a son because of the fact that his father was occupying the premises would amount an allotment on out of turn basis which defies the principles as contained under Article 14. Every public servant looks forward and he is standing in the queue and waits for his turn. If the person is accommodated in preference to the person who is standing in the queue it will take years for his turn but if can''t be accommodated according to his entitlement, such employee will definitely infringe the rule of equality. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that the petitioner can not seek the directions from this court for the regularisation of his possession in which he or his father was at one point of time in possession. In this case Amin Chand retired on 31.10.1990. In the year 1983, the Union Territory had already intimated to the police department that employee of the police department can not be accommodated from the accommodation which is earmarked for the , general pool. For a police department, the U.T, Administration had already earmarked its quota and the petitioner could only be entitled to the accommodation if he applies to his own department and it will decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to government accommodation or not, as per the Rules and the Policy framed by the department. Thus petitioner can not encroach upon the quota of others.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been discriminated when they were not allowed to retain the government accommodation. Learned counsel submitted that in similar circumstances the administration had to allow the sons and daughters of the retired government employee to retain the government accommodation. I do not see any substance as there is not an iota of evidence to prove that on record. Even if it is so, the petitioners can not be allowed to perpetuate a wrong as I had already stated above that petitioners have no right to retain the government accommodation after the retirement of their fathers. They have to stand in queue in the police department or they have to wait for their turn if they want government accommodation in the general pool. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that great hardship would be caused to the petitioners if they were compelled to pay penal rent. The learned counsel submits that direction be given to the respondents not to charge penal rent from the petitioner. Again I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners. If their possession was not authorised and they were enjoying possession only under the orders of the court, they have to abide by the law and have to bear the consequence of the dismissal of their writ petitions. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in any of the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.