S S SHARMA IAS Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that he is willing to argue the matter on the basis of the pleadings already filed and he need not file a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent in view of the fact that the only question that is to be considered is whether the Office Memorandum No.12035(24)/77-Pol.II dated 15.2.84 is applicable to the petitioner or not. Counsel for both sides agree that interpretation of this Office Memorandum will decide the entire issue in dispute. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final argument and is being disposed of finally.

(3.) The petitioner who was a Secretary to the Government of India, retired on 31.8.2002. At that point of time, the petitioner was in occupation of Government accommodation, namely, D-1/191, Satya Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner has continued in occupation of the said premises. On 3.1.2003, the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Manipur State Finance Commission. This appointment of the petitioner was by the Governor of Manipur under Section 3 of the Manipur State Finance Commission Act 1996. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner has been appointed Chairman of the said Commission in Manipur, the said Office Memorandum would apply and, in terms of which, he would be permitted to retain the present accommodation at Satya Marg, Chanakya Puri. The Estate Officer under the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued notice and ultimately passed an order dated 9.7.2003 whereby the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the said premises. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Estate Officer's order, filed an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act. The question of the Office Memorandum being applicable to the petitioner was specifically raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge in the aforesaid appeal. After considering the arguments put forth on both sides, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the said Office Memorandum would apply to only those Government officials who were still in service and posted to the State and Union Territory of North Eastern Region. He held that the same did not apply to retired Government servants and accordingly, the petitioner, being a retired Government servant, did not fall within the four corners of the said Office Memorandum and could not take advantage of the same.