R. CHASWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Armed Forces Personnel. He has been called upon to vacate the premises, that he was occupying on his regular posting, as he has now proceeded on study leave. The petitioner claims retention of the same accommodation on the ground that the policy, as formulated by the respondents on 30.1.2015 read with the letter dated 27.5.2015, cannot be applied to forcibly compel the petitioner to give up the said accommodation that was allotted to him in 2014. He is resisting the vacation of the said premises questioning the correctness of the policy and also its incorrect application by the Station Headquarters at Lucknow.

(2.) In order to compel the petitioner to vacate the premises, the respondents initiated proceedings by issuing a Notice under The Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, during the pendency of the present writ petition. The Estate Officer, under the said provisions, has proceeded to hear the petitioner and has ultimately passed an order directing his eviction on 26.10.2015. This order has been brought on record by the respondents through the second Supplementary-Counter-Affidavit.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the Station Headquarters, at the local level have on their own, proceeded to alter the policy implementation to the disadvantage of the petitioner inasmuch as the provisions of the policy dated 30.1.2015 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) clearly envisages that an Officer, who proceeds on study leave, has to be provided with alternate Hired Accommodation or Accommodation on Rent Reimbursement basis or can avail the facility of House Rent Allowance. The policy also desires the vacation of the premises in occupation as further retention of the same according to the said policy beyond a period of 10 days would not be permissible. It is in this background that the petitioner challenged the order issued by the respondents on 14.8.2015 contending that firstly the policy is not in conformity with the benefits to which an Officer proceeding on study leave, is entitled; and, secondly, the order calling upon the petitioner to vacate the accommodation was also unjust.