AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2907 of 2018 dated 28.09.2018.
The appellant-writ petitioner had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.1670 of 2012, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge directing the Corporation to allot the petitioner, the house according to her entitlement within a period of three months from the date of the order and, till then, the petitioner should not be evicted.
While, the validity of such a direction issued by the learned Single Judge is debatable, it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this aspect, as the respondent-Corporation had allotted her another accommodation.
The appellant-writ petitioner, however, again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that the accommodation, identified for her, did not even have the basic infrastructural facilities required for her to shift; and, therefore, she should be permitted to continue in the accommodation, which was hitherto occupied by her father as an Assistant Engineer.
As has noted by the learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal, the petitioner's father, who was working as an Assistant Engineer, died in harness; and the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds in a Class-III post. Employees, in Class-III posts, are not entitled to the accommodation provided to Assistant Engineers.
The learned Single Judge has, in the order under appeal, rightly observed that, in case the petitioner is not willing to occupy the accommodation provided to her, it is always open to her to choose a private accommodation elsewhere; and claim the applicable house rent allowance for the same.
Before us, Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Counsel for the appellant, would submit that cottages are being provided even to retired government servants; certain residential quarters are also being sold out after making it freehold; and one of the quarters has also been given to a political party. All these contentions can only be examined in duly constituted legal proceedings where the occupants of the said buildings are arrayed as respondents. Even if the respondents are presumed to have erred in allotting such quarters to those individuals, such illegal allotments can be questioned and cancelled in appropriate legal proceedings. That would, however, not give the appellant-writ petitioner any right to claim parity with such illegal allotments or to contend that such an illegal benefit should also be extended to her. (Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh AIR 1995 SC 705)
In an intra-court appeal, interference with the order of the learned Single Judge would be justified only if the said order suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal warranting interference. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.