HIMADRI KUMAR DEB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the civilians in defence service who are paid out of defence expenses. They were allotted service accommodations by the respondents. By an order dated 26.2.98 they were advised to vacate the accommodation in their respective possession at short notice. The legitimacy of the said notice was assailed in two writ petitions by these appellants which were numbered and registered as Civil Rule No. 25 (SH)/98 and Civil Rule No. 57(SH)/98 as being illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It was contended, inter alia, that the authority lawfully allotted accommodation to the petitioners which were under their occupation over 20 years or so. They referred to rules regulating the allotment of residence to the civilians in defence service known as "Allotment of Residences" (Defence Pool Accommodation for Civilians Defence Services) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1978"). Allotment orders did not indicate that those allotments were made for temporary purposes and the allottees were to vacate service accommodation at the short notice. The statute created an obligation on the respondents for providing alternative accommodations before asking them to vacate the accommodation. Some documents to that extent were filed in aid of its ascertain before the learned Single Judge. The respondents in its affidavit pleaded for their compulsion for such action with a view to provide accommodation to the combatants. In accommodating combatants the authority is to keep in mind administrative exigency as well as security perspective and, therefore, such combatants cannot be allowed to stay outside the cantonment area. Since there is shortage of accommodation in cantonment area the authority was compelled to take the aforementioned steps to provide accommodation to the combatants. The respondents also pleaded that the accommodation in question were not relatable to the combatant rule. The learned Single Judge considering rival claims did not find any infirmity as such in the impugned order and disposed the Civil Rules with certain observations in this regard. Hence the appeal.

(2.) Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as well as the propriety of the impugned order dated 26.2.1998 asking the appellants to give vacant possession to the respondents. Mr. Ahmed in support of his plea cited and referred some of the orders of allotment in favour of the appellants and also brought our attention to the rules regulating allotment of residences to the civilians in defence services. Mr. Ahmed submitted that civilians in defence services are also part of the administration who also render meaningful service to the respondents. Mr. Ahmed also in course of his argument portrayed about the service dislocation and inconveniences those are likely to be caused to the families of these persons by the impugned notice. Mr. S. Kalita, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents are not averse to the problems of the appellant, but the respondents sympathetically considered the case of the appellants and whenever any vacant accommodation came to surface even in the cantonment they were sought to be accommodated. Mr. Kalita referring to the materials on record submitted that the appellants were accommodated in the accommodation meant for the combatants since at the relevant time there was no requirement for such accommodation. The respondents under the circumstances had to issue the impugned order in the changed circumstances in bona fide exercise of its power. The learned counsel in other words submitted that the authority on consideration of all aspects bona fide thought it fit to take the impugned steps to render justice to the parties according to law.

(3.) We have considered the matter at length. The issue revolves round the choice of preference about the claims of the officers working under the respondents. The number of accommodation in the cantonment area are limited. The authority in their considered opinion thought it fit to prefer to accommodate the combatant. They have given their reason for it. For that purpose some of the reasons cited are that the combatants are required to move on tenure basis alternatively in peace and field Locations. The tenure in one station ranges from two to three years and a combatant due to the peculiar service conditions hardly gets a chance to stay with his family for a period ranging from two to four years in his entire career ranging from 17 to 32 years. Due to these peculiar circumstances the provisions laying down the scale of accommodation for the combatant have been incorporated in "Scale of Accommodation for Defence Services 1983". The scale for the combatants varies from 14% to 100% of the authorised strength of different categories of combatants posied in a peace station. Authority also took note of the fact that these combatants lead hard life while serving in the field station fighting the militancy and suffering the separation from their families. Due to the disturbed situation prevailing in the area and keeping in mind the corporate military discipline such persons cannot be allowed hire accommodation outside the cantonment limit. The authority also took note of the condition of service of civilian in defence and assayed the nature of their services. There is no restriction for the movement of civilian in defence and such employees are authorised accommodation. They are free to reside in any area and they are not prohibited to hire accommodation. We have given our anxious consideration on the matter. The materials on record disclosed that the respondent authority took note of all pros and cons and after deliberation it took a conscious decision to add to the morale and quality of life to the combatants and to recoup and regroup them for operations where called upon. The respondents are the allotting authority who are to prefer between the competing claims on judging the rival claims. The respondent authority ba'Jancing the situation accorded priority to put up the combatant and for that purpose passed the impugned order. The respondents are entrusted with the overtly allocafive functions of housing accommodations to its officers. They are responsible for adjusting the housing and the planning policy which mainly depends on broad considerations of its policy, allocable resources as well as the logistics In these area there is room for manoeuvring and for adopting a flexible and sophisticated course of action tuned to the exigency of the situation. The legislature confided on the respondents to set their own house in order. The Courts are neither accustomea to nor acquainted with the nuts and bolts of the allocative logistics. The reservations are echoed in the following statement of Lord Sunner in Roberts V. Hopwood (1925) AC 578 (606-607) -