E. PARASUPILLAI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent dated 15.05.2015 and quash the same and consequently allot a house to him as per the proceedings of the respondent in Roc. No. A5/2297/2012 dated 12.09.2012.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is a differently abled person. He made an application to the Block Development Officer, Thovalai Taluk, Boothapandi, for allotment of a house under the Free Housing Scheme by the State of Tamil Nadu through the Esanthimangalam Village Panchayat. The said Block Development Officer had rejected the claim of the petitioner on two grounds stating that the petitioner is employed as a daily wager in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and he owns a concrete house. However, since the petitioner did not own house and his job is in the nature of daily wage in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, he challenged the rejection of the respondent by filing a revision petition. Since the said revision was not heard of, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No. 6198 of 2012 seeking to consider the revision of the petitioner and select him as a beneficiary under the Free House Scheme. The said Writ Petition was taken on file and an order of interim direction was given to the respondents to reserve one house, pending the Writ Petition. Finally, the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of with a direction to dispose of the said revision within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Accordingly, the respondent considered the revision and rejected the claim of the petitioner on four grounds, which are narrated at paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit, is extracted below: - -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of making application the petitioner was fully eligible to get a house under the Scheme. Just because the petitioner service was regularised in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, the said reason cannot be attributed against the petitioner so as to negate the claim of the petitioner in one way or the other. Further, he submitted that the regularization of service in a Government is part and parcel of it, which can never be the basis for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. Further, he submitted that though the petitioner virtually succeeded in W.P.(MD). No. 14852 of 2014, he could not reap the benefits of the said order on account of the present impugned order passed by the respondent.