SUKH DEV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the petitioner is directed against the order passed by the respondent No.3 on 14.9.1993 by which the petitioner was directed to vacate quarter No.3 of the Bal Bhawan Staff Quarters, which was being occupied by him illegally since April 1994 and which he had not vacated inspite of repeated notices therefor.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a peon by the respondents in the office of the Bal Bhawan Society with effect from 1.10.1980 and thereafter he was confirmed in the said post of Peon in the year 1982. It may be stated herein that the father of the petitioner was also working with the respondents and he was allotted the said staff quarter No.3, Type I, by the respondents which is located within the compound of the Bal Bhawan Society. It is stated that the petitioner and is father have been living in the same premises/ residential quarter because of which the petitioner was also denied the house rent allowance as he was using the accommodation allotted to his father. After the father of the petitioner retired from service of the respondents on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. January 1994 the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents for the allotment/regularisation of the residential accommodation in his name after retirement of his father to which no specific reply has been given by the respondents till date. Instead on 4.9.1994 the aforesaid impugned notice was sent to the petitioner directing him to vacate the said quarter within 15 days from the date of the receipt of said memo.

(3.) The respondents have contested the writ petition and have also filed the counter affidavit stating inter alia that the said quarter was allotted to the father of the petitioner who was a sweeper and who has since retired from service of Bal Bhawan Society and that the petitioner started living with his father in the quarter allotted to his father w.e.f. 3.6.1989 without seeking permission or even without informing the office. It is further stated that his father made a written complaint to the respondents about the illegal occupation of the petitioner alongwith him on 12.7.1990 alleging that his son, the petitioner who came to live with him for a few months, is misbehaving and harassing him and he may be directed to vacate the premises allotted to the father of the petitioner. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that there are two main conditions for the allotment of a quarter to the eligible ward of a retiring/retired government official in lieu of the quarter allotted to him - (i) should apply to the competent authority in the prescribed form alongwith an affidavit; and (2) that the said concession would not be available to an eligible dependent, if any other dependent (member of the family) is already in occupation of Government accommodation. It is stated that the aforesaid two conditions are not fulfilled in the case of the petitioner, as the father of the petitioner instead of submitting an affidavit as required under the aforesaid condition sought the help of the police for getting the quarter vacated from his son. Again another son of Shri Bharti, the father of the petitioner namely - Munna is also working in Bal Bhawan has already been provided with a quarter in Bal Bhawan. It is further stated that there are only 8 type I quarters in the premises of Bal Bhawan and the said quarters are allotted to the personnel whose presence is required for duty round the clock such as electricians, hostel staff and drivers and others for emergency duty and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to be allotted with the aforesaid quarter being a peon with the respondent.