D P REDDY Vs. STATE U T , CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) While in service, the petitioner was allotted House No. 16, Sector-7, Chandigarh on 25.11.2013. He took premature retirement on 12.10.2018 and on the said very date, he was appointed as Chairman, State Food Commission, Punjab. The petitioner made a representation dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure P.5) to the Advisor, Union Territory, Chandigarh for retention of the aforesaid house, but his request was declined on 11.02.2019. The petitioner again made representations dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure P.7) and 26.04.2019 (Annexure P.8) and also brought to the notice of the authorities that after his appointment as Chairman, Food Commission, Punjab, he is entitled to higher category (Type-III Old) house, whereas he has been occupying Type-VI Old category house. It was further asserted in the said representations that first vacating the house and then seeking a fresh allotment would result in undue hardships and harassment to the petitioner. The request of the petitioner was declined and the petitioner was asked to apply afresh on the basis of re-employment. On another application dated 07.05.2019 (Annexure P.10) of the petitioner for retaining the said house till upper category house is allotted, as per Rule 11 of Govt. Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as '1996 Rules'), the House Allotment Committee (hereinafter referred as 'the Committee'), informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure P.11) that with the approval of the Advisor to the Administrator, the petitioner was requested to apply afresh as per his entitlement. The petitioner submitted application dated 28.06.2019 (Annexure P.12) to the Committee. The Committee vide letter dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure P.14) served a notice upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the house in question within a period of one week.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while issuing impugned notice dated 4.07.2019, the Committee had not taken into consideration Rule 11 of the 1996 Rules, which deals with the out of turn allotment under exceptional circumstances of hardship or public interest. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been residing in the house in question since 28.11.2013. It is yet further submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to retain the said house on the ground that the officers, who are already occupying Government accommodations and are re-employed or appointed after retirement, are entitled to retain that residence and this Rule also allows the family of the transferred/retired officer to retain the house in the name of working spouse, subject to the entitlement.