KISHAN SINGH NEGI Vs. GNCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is an employee of respondent No.3/BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (for short ,,BSES Yamuna). Initially the petitioner had joined the services of erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU)/Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and on unbundling of DVB his services were transferred to respondent No.3/BSES Yamuna. On the request of the petitioner, he was allotted a Type III quarter bearing No.D 117, Third Floor, IPGCL Colony, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi 110014, where he continues to live with his family. The said colony is now under the control of respondent No.2//Indra Prastha Power General Company Ltd. (for short ,,IPGCL) The petitioner made several requests to respondent No.2 to allot a flat to him on the ground floor on the ground that he was suffering from Ankylosing Spondilitis and had been advised not to climb stairs. The request of the petitioner having not been granted, he is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) IN its counter affidavit respondent No.2/IPGCL has stated that Rule 7.7 of the Allotment Rules provides for out of turn allotment on medical grounds if the employee or a member of his family is suffering from the ailments stated therein and Ankylosing Spondilitis is not one of the ailments specified in the said Rule. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that though the petitioner was entitled to allotment of a Type II quarter he was allotted a Type III quarter on his request on payment of extra licence fee and therefore, he is not entitled to seek any change of the accommodation allotted to him.

(3.) THE request of the petitioner could not be for an out of turn allotment. He having already been allotted an accommodation, the request made by him could be for change of residence which is governed by Rule 8.5 extracted hereinabove. Clause (i) of Rule 8.5 clearly stipulates that only one change is allowed to an employee. Admittedly the petitioner was initially allotted a Type II accommodation and one change has already been taken by him in the year 2007, when Type III flat bearing No.D 117, Third Floor was allotted to him. In fact, he was entitled to a change in the same type of quarter but respondent No.2 gave a concession to him by allotting a bigger accommodation to him, on payment of extra licence fee. No second change of residence is envisaged in the Rules framed by respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to yet another change by shifting him from the third floor to a ground floor flat. If the petitioner wanted only a ground floor flat, he ought not to have accepted the allotment of flat No.D 117, and at that time he could have insisted upon allotment of a flat on the ground floor and if no such allotment was forthcoming he could have continued to live in the house which he was occupying at the time he sought a change.