Narain Saran Dass vs Chandigarh (Union Territory) Administration and Others

K. Kannan J.—The writ petition seeks for a direction for regularization of allotment of a house within the limits of Chandigarh in Sector-20, which had been previously allotted to the father of the Government servant and the allotment had been made to him on such a basis. The Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration Pool) Allotment Rules, 1972 allows the Chief Commissioner the power to relax any of the Rules in writing in the case of any Government servant or residence or class of Government servants or types of residence. In exercise of the powers of relaxation granted under the Rules, the Chief Commissioner Chandigarh had passed the following order:

In exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.R.317-M-26 of Government Residence (Chandigarh Administration Pool) Allotment Rules, 1972, the Chief Commissioner is pleased to decide that when a Government servant who has been allotted Government accommodation from the General Pool retires from service his son/daughter/wife/husband or father be allotted accommodation from the general pool on an ad hoc basis provided that the said relation is a Government servant eligible for general pool accommodation and had been sharing accommodation with the retiring officer for at least six months before the date of retirement.

The Chief Commissioner Chandigarh is further pleased to decide that the same residence may be regularized in the name of the relation when he/she is eligible for a residence of that type or a higher type in both other cases, the said relation will be allotted a residence of his or her entitled type as available at the time or failing that type next below if acceptable to the allottee.

The above order requires that when a Government servant had been allotted Government accommodation from the general pool and such a person retires from service, his son/daughter/wife or husband may also be allotted from the general pool on ad hoc basis provided he fulfills two qualifications. One, he is a Government servant eligible for general pool accommodation and two, he has been sharing the accommodation with the retiring officer for at least six months before the date of retirement. That the petitioner was a Government servant at the time when the allotment was sought is not denied. That the petitioner also was sharing the accommodation with the retiring officer for more than six months before the date of retirement is also not denied. The point in controversy, however, is that, by the reading which the respondent wants to place on the order, such residence of six months by a Government servant must be for such a period in the capacity as Government servant as such. In other words, six months period shall not merely relate to his joint residence with the retiring Government servant but it shall also be with reference to the length of service that the son or daughter, husband or wife must have put in at the time when the continuation in such house is sought for.

The further contention of Learned Counsel appearing for the Administration is on a factual basis that the Government servant retired on 31.12.1985 from the High Court and the petitioner, who was the son of the Government Servant was appointed on the reopening of the Court on 06.01.1986. He joined on 07.01.1986. According to him, therefore, when the petitioner was not a Government servant on the date when his father retired, he cannot be favoured with an allotment. This is countered by Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner by stating that the Government servant, who has retired, is entitled to a grace period of two months and the petitioner could not have been evicted unless voluntarily surrendered by the petitioner''s father till 28.02.1986. If he was lawfully evicted and the petitioner becomes the Government servant, then the benefit of the order issued in relaxation of the Rules would still be available. Learned Counsel appearing for the Administration states that the grace period for continuation of a Government servant, which is available independently, cannot be juxtaposed to the order issued on 03.04.1971 and the later order must be read independently.

I am unable to agree with the contentions made on behalf of the Administration. All that has to be seen is, at the time when the petitioner makes a plea for permission to continue, he should a Government servant. The relevant Rules contemplated allotment of a property only in the case of a Government servant, which the petitioner was. That the petitioner shall be a Government servant also on the date of retirement of his father is not a requirement, that could be discerned from the Rules. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to a decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. The Union Territory through Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh and Ors. 1982 (4) All ILLR 626 where the same Rules were considered by a learned Single Judge of this Hon''ble Court. It referred to a situation of a son of a retiring Government servant seeking for an allotment and in that case the amended rule came into force two days after the retirement and the Court found that it was of no consequence as possession of retiring Government servant was legal as long as he was entitled to retain possession for two months after retirement. Although not directly applicable, it refers to the effect of a right of retiring Government servant to continue in possession for a further period of two months. In this case, it was during that period of two months that the petitioner became a Government servant and if his stay with the retiring Government servant had been shown to have been for more than six months that itself would provide to him a right to allotment under the relevant rules.

It appears that the petitioner has actually evicted from the property but the issue obtains relevance only in a case of demand for penalty by the Chandigarh Administration treating the occupation as unauthorized and illegal. In the view that I have taken that the petitioner was entitled to such allotment and occupation, the question of payment of penalty does not arise. In view of the fact that the petitioner is no longer in possession of the property, the petitioner shall have no right to exercise or demand any right in the property. This judgment shall be confined only to answering a situation that he shall not be liable for any penal levy by the Chandigarh Administration by attempting to treat his period of enjoinment as unlawful. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.