SHASHI VIKRANT Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the two petitioners whereby respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the applicant (Annexure -w A/4) for allotment of Govt. Accommodation on the ground that she is not eligible under the House Allotment Rules. Briefly the case of the petitioned as set out in the O.A, is that she joined as a Litho -Artist in Himachal Pradesh Government Printing Press on August 7, 1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1500 -2640/ -. The husband of the applicant remained posted in Shimla from May 1990 to June 1996 as Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer. In June 1996 he was transferred as Executive Engineer to I&PH Division Keylong in Lahaul & Spiti. The father of the applicant Shri B.D. Pathak, retired as a Registrar from H.P. PWD on 31.3.1997. In Feb. 1997 she shifted to Govt. Accommodation allotted to her father. She submitted an application dated 15.2.1997 Annexure -A1, to the Controller, Himachal Pradesh Printing & Stationery Department, Shimla -5, whereby she requested that House Rent Allowance being paid to her may not be paid to her with effect from February 1997 on wards as she had started staying in the Govt. Accommodation allotted to her father. The father of the applicant retired on 31.3.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. She submitted the application on proper form on 18.4.1997 (Annexure -A/2) whereby she claimed allotment of Government Accommodation in occupation of her retired father.

(2.) The basic pay of the applicant w.e.f. 1.8.1996 is Rs. 1800/ -. As per Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (Genera) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "Allotment Rules), the type -III residence is admissible to an employee with monthly emoluments less than Rs. 3000/ -but not less than Rs. 1800/ -. The accommodation in occupation of father of applicant is a Type -III accommodation and as such, applicant is eligible for allotment of the said accommodation, on the retirement of her father. The applicant made a representation in the month of July 1997 (Annexure -A5) whereby she drew the attention of respondent No. 2 to the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1996(2) SCS 380 Savita Sam Vedi Vs. Union of India and claimed that when married son is eligible for allotment of Government accommodation on the retirement of his father/mother, the married daughter shall also be eligible for such allotment. She requested to reconsider her case in the light of judgment supra. Till date, she has not received any response.

(3.) The father of the applicant was entitled to retain the accommodation in question upto 31st July, 1997 (4 months) after his retirement. Thereafter, he was allowed to retain the accommodation by granting him extension upto August 31, 1997 in the first instance and thereafter upto October 31,1997 in the second instance. Thus, the father of the applicant has been in occupation of the accommodation in question after his retirement on double the normal rent i.e. Rs. 175/ - per month. Since the application of the applicant for allotment of accommodation in question has been rejected and on her representation to re -consider her case in the light of law declared by the Honble Supreme Court, no decision has been conveyed to her till the filing of this O.A., she has to approach this Tribunal.