RAJINDER PARSAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the civilians working with the different branches of the Army Establishment at Ferozepur. The petitioners were allotted Government Married Accommodation in Ferozepur Cantonment for a period of 6 months on temporary basis on different dates from 2008 to 2011. The allotment was with a further condition that quarter will be vacated on demand and no representation would be entertained. It was in April 2013 an order was issued to all the petitioners to vacate the Government Married Accommodation. Such notice was challenged by the petitioners by way of an original application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'). Such notice was challenged that as per the policy of Government of India, the petitioners were entitled to retain the Government Accommodation allotted to them at Ferozepur and that since their children are studying in school and their families are residing at Ferozepur, they should be allowed to retain such accommodation. In the written reply, it was pointed out that the petitioners were allotted Government Married Accommodation at Ferozepur Cantonment from the Defence Pool which had been constructed on the basis of authorized strength of Army Officers as per Key Location Plan of the station vide Station Headquarters Ferozepur Cantonment. These quarters are meant for the Armed Forces personnel and not for civilians. Since some of these quarters were lying vacant, in order to obtain optimum benefit of the vacant quarters, the petitioners were offered allotment notwithstanding the fact that they were not eligible for this type of accommodation. It is categorically asserted that petitioners were not eligible for Government Married Accommodation meant for Armed Forces personnel at Ferozepur at the cost of eligible Army personnel.

(2.) After considering the respective contentions, on the basis of the offer of the respondents that the petitioners would be permitted to retain the accommodation allotted to them till 31.03.2014, the learned Tribunal did not find any merit in the original application and dismissed the same with the condition that the petitioners shall be allowed to retain the accommodation till 31.03.2014. It is said order which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the requirement of the Armed Forces personnel can easily be met from the accommodation, the details of which are available in Annexure P-9. It is also pointed out that many other civilians are occupying such accommodation. Therefore, the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to vacate the premises is discriminatory and arbitrary.