RENU GROVER Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Renu Grover wife of Rakesh Grover and her father-in-law L.N. Grover son of Ram Chand Grover has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari/mandamus seeking directions of this Court that the orders dated 17.2.1987 passed by the Secretary House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh (Annexure P4 and P6), notices sent by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act, 1971 dated 3.3.1987 (Annexure P7) and the proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner be quashed and directions be issued to the respondents to declare that petitioners entitle to the allotment of the quarter in question.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 2 who was posted as Audit Officer in the Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited at the time of his retirement. He was permanent Superintendent in Haryana Government. He served Haryana Government for a long time and thereafter he retired on 31.10.1986 as Accounts Officer. During this service he was allotted Quarter No. 1546, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh in the year 1957. Petition No. 1 is also a Punjab Government employee and she was staying with her father-in-law for the last more than 6 months prior to the retirement of petitioner No. 2. It is pleaded by the petitioners that Chandigarh Administration respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under S.R. No. 317-M-26 of Government Residence (Chandigarh Administration Pool) Allotment Rules, 1972, had decided that a Government servant, who has been allotted Government accommodation from the general pool, when retires from service, his son, daughter, wife, husband or father be allotted accommodation from general pool on ad hoc basis, provided that the said relation is a Government servant eligible for general pool accommodation and had been sharing accommodation with the retiring officer for at least six months before the date of retirement. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 applied to the Secretary, House Allotment Committee on 7.5.1986 praying that the government quarter which was under his occupation be transferred to petitioner No. 1. This application was followed by a number of reminders but to no effect. Instead of making allotment in favour of petitioner No. 1, the Secretary House Allotment Committee passed an order dated 17.2.1987 informing petitioner No. 2 that he was retaining the quarter unauthorisedly and for this reason he became liable for payment of licence fee equal to the market rent. On 3.371987 petitioner No. 2 received notice from the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act, 1971 to show cause why an order of eviction be not passed against him. Earlier the matters regarding allotment of houses used to be governed by the Chandigarh Administration Pool Allotment Rules, 1972 which rules were published on 1.2.1973 in the Chandigarh Administration Notification. Later on the Chandigarh Administration issued a circular on 10.6.1987 changing the mode of allotment of house to the employees who were retiring. Earlier the policy was for the benefit of the dependents of retired Government servants and benefits used to be extended not only to the daughters but also to the daughter-in-laws of the retiring Government servants. Thus the case set up by the petitioner No. 1 is that she has been staying with her father-in-law petitioner No. 2 for the last more than six months before the retirement of petitioner No. 2 and as per policy of 1972, she is also entitled to retain the accommodation on the retirement of her father-in-law.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who filed reply denying the allegations. According to the respondents there is no provision of daughter-in-law in the rules whereby request of petitioner No. 1 for the allotment of the house from the name of the petitioner could be accepted. As per the rules, Annexure P.1, petitioner No. 1 could not be allotted a house and hence order which has been passed by the respondents authorities are legal. The petitioners are even liable to pay licence fee equal to the market rent after cancellation of the house on 17.2.1987. The request of the petitioners was neither legal nor legitimate because the rules no where helps them for the allotment of the house. The case of the petitioners is not covered by the rules as mentioned in Annexure P-1 nor by the instructions issued by the Home Secretary dated 10.6.1987. Moreover, as per the instructions Annexure P. 10 the policy regarding allotment of house on priority basis to the son/daughter/dependent of a retired employee has been discontinued with effect from 10.6.1987.