BANVEER SINGH PANWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Section Officer (Horticulture) in CPWD since 1983. He was allotted Government accommodation bearing quarter No. B- 9/717, Lodhi Road, New Delhi on 20.11.1989. He was transferred to Agra on 27.4.1998 where he remained posted till 30.3.2001. He was thereafter transferred back to Delhi w.e.f. 18.4.2001. The Government accommodation allotted to him was cancelled vide letter dated 13.12.2002 w.e.f. 1.7.1998. The eviction orders under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were passed by the Estate Officer in respect of aforementioned accommodation on 25.4.2003. The petitioner was asked to vacate the Government accommodation mentioned above within 15 days of the eviction order and aggrieved therefrom the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order of cancellation of allotment and rejection of his request for regularisation of the said accommodation in his name vide impugned order dated 25.3.2003. The petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to regularise him the Government accommodation in his name as it has been done by the respondents in the case of similarly situated persons whose names are mentioned in para (xiii) at page 7 of the petition. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied having regularised the Government accommodation to the persons whose names are mentioned in para (xiii) at page 7 of the petition. The respondents have also not denied that these persons in whose favour the accommodation has been regularised are similarly situated persons like the petitioner as they were also transferred for a period of more than one year after they were re-posted to Delhi. The Government accommodation in their favour was regularised, subject to payment of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the Government premises by them during the period of their transfer.

(2.) Ms. Monika Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on instructions says that the Government accommodation in question shall be regularised in favour of the petitioner also on same terms and conditions as it was done in case of persons whose names are mentioned in para (xiii) at page 7 of the petition.

(3.) Mr. R.V.Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that his client is ready to pay the damage at market rate for unauthorised use and occupation of the Government accommodation as it was paid by other persons in whose favour Government accommodation was regularised by the respondents.