GOEL R P Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitioners in this Writ Petition are named R. P. Goel. Petitioner No. 2 is the son of. petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was a Report Writer posted at the Minto Road, Government of India Press, New Delhi, appointed in 1952. He was allotted a quarter No. F-2237, Netaji Nagar in New Delhi, which he occupied along with his family members. He retired on 30th Nov. 1982. Petitioner No. 2, the son, was initially a copy-holder at Minto Road, Government of India Press, New Delhi. On 29th March 1973, he was transferred to the Government of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi. On 10th Nov., 1981, he requested by an application that he be transferred back to the Minto Road Press, but he was not transferred in spite of many vacancies being available. On the retirement of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 claimed eligibility to get the quarter transferred in his favour. He had not drawn house rent allowance for a period of more than three years and he fulfilled the requirements to get the quarter except that he was employed at the Ring Road Press and not the Minto Road Press. According to the petitioner, on various previous occasions, other persons had been transferred to get the benefit of the father's quarter. This happened in the case of Shri Sarabjit Singh, a copyholder in 1983; it also happened in the case of Shri Y. K. Kohli, another copy-holder, and it also happened in the case of Shri Sukhdev Parshad, a Lino-Operator. Furthermore, Shri L. D. Jain's son got the quarter of Shri L. D. Jain in 1985, although he was not even fully entitled according to the petitioners. It is also claimed that even otherwise the respondents have the power to transfer the quarter in question from the pool of the Minto Road Press to the pool of the Ring Road Press. This has happened in the case of Shri G. D. Negi, Overseer, Shri M. K. Debroy, Accountant and Shri Jaswant Singh, A. M. (Administration). Other examples are the case of Shri B. M. Vats and Shri Baldev Singh, copy-holdr, who got quarters from the general pool although they were entitled to quarters from the Press Pool accommodation.

(2.) Instead of allotting the quarter to petitioner No. 2, steps were taken by the Estate Officer to get the premises vacated, but a suit was filed by the petitioners which is pending before a Subordinate Judge. It is also the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner had not drawn house rent allowance for more than three years and had been living with the retired Government servant i.e., petitioner No. 1, and was, therefore, eligible for regularisation of the quarter. It is further stated that the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioners similarly to the other cases is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) A show cause notice was issued in this petition and reply was filed. It was claimed that the allotment in favour of petitioner No. 1 was cancelled on 1st Feb., 1983. It was also claimed that simultaneous proceedings were taken before the Senior Subordinate Judge and also the High Court. As far as the petitioners' claim on. merits was concerned, it was contended that petitioner No. 2 had been transferred from the Minto Road Press to Ring Road Press on his own request, but his representation for re-transfer was rejected. The cases cited by the petitioners of others who had been transferred in order to get the quarter were sought to be distinguished on the ground that they were cases of transfer and not cases of re-transfer. It was claimed that the petitioner was in a separate class altogether, and hence no question of discrimination arose. As the petitioner had himself asked for transfer in 1972 and got benefits, he was not entitled to re-transfer.