UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHANKER RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELHI is a place where cost of living as well as cost of construction has been steadily increasing at least in the last 30 years. Last few years have seen an upward trend at feverish pace. For persons with average income, to which category Government employees also belong, it is already becoming difficult to have their own accommodation in Delhi. That day is not far away when it would be impossible for a salaried class employee (excluding those with higher income like top executives in corporate sector) to afford his own house as the residential accommodations are becoming costlier and prices skyrocketing. It has corresponding effect of similar nature on the rentals as well. Therefore, arranging a rental accommodation also is becoming difficult to this middle class. It is one important reason that rent-free accommodation provided by the employer is viewed as the most lucrative perk. As a sequitur, this also becomes reason for perennial litigation between the employer and the employees, particularly where the employer is the Government. The disputes are not. confined to getting the Government accommodation allotted, but go far beyond and touch upon the entitlement to the type of accommodation as well. Problem is compounded also because of the fact that there is a growing demand for such accommodations as the persons entitled to the Government accommodations, and for a particular type of accommodation, are larger in number than the staff quarters that are available. This scenario of demand being far more than the supply compounds the problem and gives raise to various legal issues. Present is one such case.

(2.) THE respondent herein is the Member of Central Administrative tribunal (for short, 'cat'), Principal Bench, New Delhi. He was initially appointed as Member (Judl.) in the CAT on 10. 12. 2000. Said term was for a period of 5 years. After the expiry of this period, the respondent had been reappointed for a further period of 5 years. Within a short span of his initial appointment, the respondent was allotted Government quarter in the general Pool, i. e. C-II/82, Bapa Nagar, New Delhi, which is a Type C-II category allotment. He continues to occupy this house. It is not in dispute that a Member of the CAT is entitled to better accommodation, i. e. Type C-I house. Therefore, his entitlement to Type C-I quarter is not in question. However, according to the petitioner/uoi, since there is a shortage of government accommodation, such officials are normally allotted the accommodation of a type below their entitlement and their names are placed in the Waiting List to enable them to get the allotment of the residential accommodation as per their entitlement upon their turn maturing as per the Waiting List. This happened in the case of the respondent as well. The respondent did not even question the aforesaid move on the part of the petitioners herein in initially allotting him Type C-II accommodation and putting his name in the Waiting List. The dispute has now arisen as according to the respondent, on the basis of his date of appointment i. e. December 2000, his turn has matured for allotment of Type C-I quarter as well. The petitioners join issue. Differences have arisen because in the waiting List prepared and maintained by the petitioner No. 2/directorate of estates, date of priority mentioned against the name of the respondent is given as 6. 12. 2006. Thus, the dispute is as to whether the date of priority should be 10. 12. 2000, as claimed by the respondent, or 6. 12. 2006 as per the petitioners.

(3.) WE may, however, point out at this stage that claiming the aforesaid benefit, the respondent had filed OA No. 631/2007 under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and vide judgment dated 24. 5. 2007 the said OA of the respondent is allowed. In this OA, interim order dated 30. 4. 2007 was passed restraining the petitioners from allotting quarter No. C-I/77, Bapa Nagar Colony, New Delhi which had fallen vacant. While allowing the application of the respondent herein, the Tribunal has also directed the petitioners to allot said staff quarter No. C-I/77 to the respondent herein within a period of two weeks of the judgment. This judgment is assailed in the present petition.