DARSHAN JAIN Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to regillnrise the allotment of her general pool accommodation which has been effected in favour of her husband, by effecting inter change of accommodation to which the petitioner would be entitled from the respondent nos. 1 & 2. The writ petitioner contends that her husband Shri M.H. Jain was allotted quarter no. 23/205, Type - IV, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi on 2nd/3fd April, 1997. The petitioner's husband who was working as Assistant Registrar in the Supreme Court of India, was compelled to take premature retirement/voluntary retirement on 7th February, 2006.

(2.) In the meantime, the petitioner joined the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as an Assistant Teacher as on 2nd August, 1979. She was promoted as TGT (English) on pt April, 1992 and transferred to the office of the respondent no. 2. As the petitioner was herself entitled to an allotment of accommodation from the respondent nos.1 & 2, she made an application in 1992 for allotment of a quarter in the type III category which application is stated to be pending. The respondent 1'105.1 & 2 have stated that the petitioner applied for a' type III category flat in Siddharth Extension for which allotment, the petitioner is still in the waiting list .

(3.) After the voluntary retirement of the petitioner's husband, the allotment of the quarter in his favour was cancelled by the respondent no. 4 by an order passed on 11th June, 2006. His request for extension of allotment was accepted and he was permitted to occupy the flat upto 7th October, 2006. Prior to the expiry of this period, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize the said central pool- accommodation allotted to her husband in her favour. The petitioner places reliance on two office memorandums, being O.M. No. 12035/4/98-Pol-II dated May, 1999 and O.M. No. 12035/7.3/2000-Pol-11 dated 26th December, 2000, to urge that her request to the respondents and' her prayer by way of writ petition are justified. It is further urged that the petitioner is also due for retirement shortly in October, 2008 and grave and irreparable prejudice would result to the family in case this request was not,. accepted. The petitioner has further submitted that it was on account of compelling reasons that her husband was constrained to seek voluntary retirement and the respondent ought to take a compassionate view in the matter.