Sqn Ldr R.N. Rao vs Union of India

Jawahar Lal Gupla, J.—The petitioner, an officer in the Air Force prays for the issue of a writ directing the respondent authorities to allow him to "retain the house in which he is residing at present" despite his transfer to Jorhat (Assam) vide order dated July 30, 1999.

The short question is - Has the petitioner an indefeasible right to retain the accommodation which he was occupying at Chandigarh during the tenure of his positing here ? Or

Can his family be accommodated in a house of a lower category ?

Ms. Ritu Punj, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the instructions issued by the Government of India vide letter dated November, 12, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition. She points out that by virtue of these instructions_ an officer on his transfer to Assam and Tripura is entitled to the "retention of Government married accommodation.........occupied by the officer prior to posting to Assam and Tripura......." She further points out that the circumstances were reiterated by a subsequent communication of June 26, 2000. On this basis, it is claimed that the appropriate direction deserves to be issued to the respondents.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that vide letter dated April 23, 1998 the instructions issued on November 12, 1997 have been clarified. It has been specifically pointed out that the "retention of accommodation may not necessarily be the same accommodation allotted to service personnel at previous duty station after their posting to Assam/Tripura areas. Such retention can be of any type of accommodation including hired/below status temporary married accommodation".

It is well known that there is shortage of accommodation. Officers are allotted accommodation on the basis of availability, when they are transferred, me normal rule is that the accommodation held by the ill-dividual has to be vacated. This rule applies equally to all the Government houses. In the case of personnel posted to the States of Assam and Tripura, a concession has been given. It has been provided that, in case they opt to leave the family at their original station of posting, they will be allowed to retain the accommodation. The instructions issued by the Government of India vide its letter of November 12, 1997 clearly indicate that retention of Government married accommodation is permissible, However, retention does not necessarily imply that they are entitled to continue to remain in occupation of the premises which had been given to them at the time of their posting at a particular station. In the context, it only means ''some accommodation''. The doubt which had been created with regard to the instructions was clarified, by the Air Force authorities vide their letter of April 23, 1998 in which it was categorically indicated that the retention can be in respect of "any type of accommodation including hired/below status temporary married accommodation". We think it is only fair to accept this interpretation. Otherwise, the persons who are posted in Chandigarh may be left without any accommodation while those who are not serving here would continue to remain in occupation of the premises initially allotted to them.

Ms. Punj contends that the action of the respondents is discriminatory inasmuch as two other officers viz. Mr. S.S. Sawant and Mr. P.C. Datta who had been similarly transferred have been allowed to retain the original accommodation. In the petition, no such grievance has been made. Thus, the respondents had no opportunity to controvert it. They had no chance to give the factual position and indicate the reasons for the order which may have been passed.

Ms. Punj states that she has prepared a replication in which the factual position has been given.

The written statement on behalf of the respondents had been filed in December 2000. The petitioner had sufficient time to place the factual position on record. It has not been placed.

Irrespective of the above, even if it is assumed that some officers have been accommodated, it cannot mean that the petitioner has an indefeasible right to continue to occupy the accommodation initially allotted to him. Some times it can happen that a house is available. So, the family is allowed to continue to retain it for a few days of months. However, it cannot become a permanent feature.

In the present case, we are concerned only with the legality of the order asking the petitioner to shift to the house of a lower category. In our view, the action is not illegal. It is not unfair. It is not arbitrary, it is not contrary to the instructions issued by the Government. In the context of the factual position, we find no infirmity in the order. Consequently, no ground for interference is made out.

No other point has been raised.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No

Petition dismissed.