MEHIPAL HEAD CONSTABLE Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I will dispose of five writ petitions bearing No. 15719 Mahi Pal v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 14345 of 1989 Parveen Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 9930 of 1994 Balwinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 14268 of 1989 Randhir Singh v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors., CWP 8346 Deepak Singh v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors. as in the opinion of this court all the five writ petitions can be disposed of by this judgment as common question of law and fact is involved. For the sake of facts, I am gathering from CWP No. 15719 of 1991 Mahi Pal v. Chandigarh Administration and others.

(2.) Shri Mahipal filed the writ petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the government residential accommodation (XII type) in the name of the petitioner after making a transfer of the allotment from the name of his father Shri Ami Chand to the name of the petitioner as Shri Ami Chand has retired from services on 31.10.1990 and as per policy decision of the Chandigarh Administration and directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the house in question till he is allotted a government residential accommodation.

(3.) The case set up by Mahi Pal is that his father Ami Chand was also working in Union Territory Police department and retired as head Constable on 31st October 1990. He as well as his father had unblemished record to their credit during the entire span of service. The father of the petitioners Sh. Ami Chand was allotted government house No. 12/1535-A in Sector 20-B, Chandigarh and the petitioner being son of Amin Chand was residing with his father in the same accommodation. The petitioner joined the police department of Union Territory on 9.5.1980 and had been residing with his father Amin Chand. As the father of the petitioner was going to retire on 31.10.1990, therefore, he applied for the transfer of allotment of House No. 12/1535-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh in his name. However, vide letter dated 30.4.1990, respondent No. 3 informed the office of the petitioner that since the Chandigarh Administration had stopped allotment of general pool accommodation to U.T. Police personnel, the request of the petitioner for the transfer of allotment of the said house in his name could not be exceeded to. The petitioner again submitted the application on the required form through his office i.e. SSP, U.T. Chandigarh which was sent to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 26.10.1990 with the request that the transfer of the house be made in his name from the name of his father who was going to retire on 31.10.1990. It is further the case of the petitioner Mahi Pal that his father also made the request that house be allotted in the name of his son as he was going to retire but nothing has been done by respondent No. 3. A letter was also written by Senior Supdt. of Police, Chandigarh to the Chairman, house Allotment Committee on 4.6.1991 but to no effect. In the meanwhile, the father of the petitioner was served with notice under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and order was passed against his father for the vacation of the premises within 15 days. This order was passed on 13.5.1991. The petitioner further relies upon judgment dated 7.6.1991, passed by this Court. The request for making allotment of the house allotted to his father was made by the petitioner as per policy decision dated 4.7.1988 and the policy decision dated 13.2.1989, Annexures P-ll and P-12. In the alternative, it is also pleaded by the petitioner that he can retain the government accommodation as per S.R.317-A.M./26 of the Rules. The petitioner had been residing with his father since 1980. In short, the case set up by the petitioner is that since he is the son of the retired government employee working in the police department and that he himself was working in the police department and was residing with his father, therefore, he is entitled to retain the government accommodation even after the retirement of his father out of turn.