M P GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the period when the petitioner Mr. M.P. George was posted at Chandigarh as Superintendent in the Military Engineering Service, he was allotted Govt. residential accommodation, namely, House No. 1106, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh, out of the general pool residential accommodation. In July, 1987, the petitioner was transferred to Bhatinda but despite his transfer he did not vacate the premises allotted to him. This led to an order of eviction being passed against him on March 15, 1988 (Annexure P/1) under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, by his order of June 1, 1988 (Annexure P/2). It was thereafter that he filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of eviction passed against him.

(2.) The impugned order was, in the first instance, sought to be assailed on the ground of discrimination. The contention of Mr. Aditya Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, in this behalf, being that a person similarly situated, as the petitioner, had been allowed to retain the government residential accommodation allotted to him, on his transfer to Bhatinda, but such a privilege had been denied to the petitioner. He referred, in this behalf, to para 5 of the writ petition, where it was stated that according to the instructions of June 23, 1981 of the Ministry of Defence, officials occupying Central Government (General Pool) accommodation, who are transferred to Bhatinda, are entitled to retain the accommodation allotted to them at their earlier place of posting. A reference to the return filed by the respondents would, however, show that the instructions, cited by the petitioner, are those applicable to the Defence Pool Accommodation whereas the petitioner is occupying General Pool Accommodation and he cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of these instructions.

(3.) The rule is well-established that once a person is transferred from his place of posting, the government residential accommodation, allotted to him, must be vacated. This rule has been flagrantly disregarded by the petitioner and he is, therefore, not entitled to any relief as claimed by him. This writ petition is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.