ASHALATHA S Vs. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is presently working as Assistant Town Planner under the first respondent, GCDA. The appellant was allotted a D type quarter on 21.1.2013, while she was working as Draftsman Gr.I. At the time of allotment, the appellant was not entitled for allotment of D type quarter. The allotment was made on the basis of an order issued by the Chairman, GCDA, pursuant to an application submitted by the appellant on medical grounds, more specifically on the ground that she was undergoing treatment for infertility and also for uterine fibroids. While residing in the D type quarters, the appellant received Ext P1 order dated 9.8.2018 requiring her to vacate the quarter for the reason that the 4th respondent, who is an Assistant Engineer had been allotted her quarters. Under Ext P1, the appellant was also directed to shift to an E type quarter. Though the appellant submitted an appeal before the third respondent, that did not evoke any positive response and hence the appellant filed WP(C) No.29508 of 2018. That Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the appeal and further directing that pending consideration of the appeal, the appellant shall be allowed to continue in the quarters occupied by her. Thereupon, the Executive Committee of the GCDA considered the appeal and found that the appellant was liable to vacate the D type quarter occupied by her and to shift to an E type quarter. Though, the appellant tried to agitate the issue again by filing an application under Rule 48 of the GCDA Family Quarters (Allotment and Occupation) Rules 1989, that application was not entertained in view of the earlier order of the Executive Committee. Thereupon, the Writ Petition was filed seeking to quash Exts P1, P4 and P8 and for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts P6 and P7 applications in accordance with law and in the meanwhile, to keep in abeyance Ext P8.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 resisted the prayers in the Writ Petition by contending that the appellant had been allotted a D type quarter, for which she was not entitled then. The allotment was made on medical grounds and on the specific written undertaking by the appellant that she would vacate the quarters, within ten days, if so demanded. Though the appellant became eligible for allotment of D type quarter on 4.9.2018, the allotment could not be made since senior employees eligible for allotment of D type quarters was waiting in the queue. It was also contended that even though Rule 5 of the Rules for Allotment and Occupation of GCDA Family Quarters mandate the submission of an application for allotment, the appellant had not submitted any such application and therefore, had not been included in the list of employees awaiting allotment of D type quarters. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had been occupying the D type quarters from 2013 onwards, when persons in higher cadre eligible for such allotment, was waiting. It was further found that the allotment on medical grounds does not confer any right on the appellant to claim that she should not be evicted for accommodating senior claimants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant assails the findings in the impugned judgment contending that having been allotted with D type quarters and having subsequently acquired eligibility for such allotment, respondents 1 to 3 had committed a grave illegality in requiring the appellant to vacate the quarters for accommodating another person. It is contended that the 4th respondent, who is alleged to be having a better claim than the appellant, has already been allotted a D type quarter and therefore, there is no reason to compel the appellant to vacate her quarters. It is also contended that respondents 1 to 3 ought to have passed a reasoned order on Ext P7 application.