CHITRANJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as an Assistant Director (Horticulture) in CPWD. He had joined the service of CPWD as Section Officer (Horticulture) on 10.4.1981 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) w.e.f. 27.6.1997. Consequent upon his promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture), he was transferred vide transfer order dated 30.6.1997 to Manesar (Gurgaon) where he remain posted till 30.3.2000. The petitioner was re-transferred to Delhi vide transfer order dated 30.3.2000 and he joined on his such transfer in Delhi on 30.3.2000. Before his transfer to Manesar (Gurgaon), he was alloted the Government accommodation bearing quarter No. 15, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi in 1991. The allotment of the said accommodation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 15.1.2003 and thereafter proceedings for his eviction from the said premises were initiated against him under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 which resulted into passing of an eviction order dated 17.10.2003 by the Estate Officer. Aggrieved by the said order of the Estate Officer, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the Estate Officer and for direction to the respondents to regularise the aforementioned accommodation in his name as it has been done in case of similarly situated persons whose names are mentioned in Annexure P-6 at page 36- 37 of the paper book. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied that they have regularised the Government accommodation in case of similarly situated persons whose names are mentioned in Annexure P-6 referred in para (xii) at page 14 of the petition.

(2.) Ms. Monika Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted on instructions that the respondents have agreed to regularise the Government accommodation in question in favour of the petitioner also on the same terms and conditions as it was regularised in case of other similarly situated persons mentioned in Annexure P-6. Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions says that his client is ready to abide by the terms of regularisation as it was imposed as a condition for regularisation in case of other similarly situated persons.

(3.) In view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned eviction order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the Estate Officer is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to regularise the aforementioned Government accommodation in favour of the petitioner on same terms and conditions as it was done in case of other similarly situated persons.