NARAIN SARAN DASS Vs. CHANDIGARH UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition seeks for a direction for regularization of allotment of a house within the limits of Chandigarh in Sector- 20, which had been previously allotted to the father of the Government servant and the allotment had been made to him on such a basis. The Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration Pool) Allotment Rules, 1972 allows the Chief Commissioner the power to relax any of the Rules in writing in the case of any Government servant or residence or class of Government servants or types of residence. In exercise of the powers of relaxation granted under the Rules, the Chief Commissioner Chadigarh had passed the following order:

(2.) The above order requires that when a Government servant had been allotted Government accommodation from the general pool and such a person retires from service, his son/daughter/wife or husband may also be allotted from the general pool on ad hoc basis provided he fulfills two qualifications. One, he is a Government servant eligible for general pool accommodation and two, he has been sharing the accommodation with the retiring officer for at least six months before the date of retirement. That the petitioner was a Government servant at the time when the allotment was sought is not denied. That the petitioner also was sharing the accommodation with the retiring officer for more than six months before the date of retirement is also not denied. The point in controversy, however, is that, by the reading which the respondent wants to place on the order, such residence of six months by a Government servant must be for such a period in the capacity as Government servant as such. In other words, six months period shall not merely relate to his joint residence with the retiring Government servant but it shall also be with reference to the length of service that the son or daughter, husband or wife must have put in at the time when the continuation in such house is sought for.

(3.) The further contention of learned counsel appearing for the Administration is on a factual basis that the Government servant retired on 31.12.1985 from the High Court and the petitioner, who was the son of the Government Servant was appointed on the re-opening of the Court on 06.01.1986. He joined on 07.01.1986. According to him, therefore, when the petitioner was not a Government servant on the date when his father retired, he cannot be favoured with an allotment. This is countered by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by stating that the Government servant, who has retired, is entitled to a grace period of two months and the petitioner could not have been evicted unless voluntarily surrendered by the petitioner's father till 28.02.1986. If he was lawfully evicted and the petitioner becomes the Government servant, then the benefit of the order issued in relaxation of the Rules would still be available. Learned counsel appearing for the Administration states that the grace period for continuation of a Government servant, which is available independently, cannot be juxtaposed to the order issued on 03.04.1971 and the later order must be read independently.