9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents have a right to retain government accommodation after retirement. 2. The applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 3. The constitutional right to shelter and its enforcement. 4. The duty of the State to provide shelter to internally displaced persons (IDPs). Summary: Issue 1: Right to Retain Government Accommodation Post-Retirement The respondents, Kashmiri Pandits and former Central Government employees, were transferred to Delhi due to security threats in Kashmir. They were provided government accommodation in Delhi. Post-retirement, they sought to continue occupying these accommodations, arguing that the unsafe conditions in Kashmir prevented their return. The learned Single Judge allowed their writ petitions, quashing the eviction orders and directing the government to provide alternative accommodation. Issue 2: Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act (PP Act) The Union of India argued that the respondents became unauthorized occupants post-retirement and were subject to eviction under the PP Act. The Estate Officer had followed due procedure in passing eviction orders, which were upheld by the appellate authority. However, the respondents challenged these orders, invoking their constitutional rights. Issue 3: Constitutional Right to Shelter The court recognized the respondents' right to shelter as part of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents' displacement due to violence in Kashmir and the government's failure to ensure their safe return necessitated the provision of alternative accommodation. The court emphasized the humanitarian aspect and the need for a justice-oriented approach. Issue 4: Duty of the State to Provide Shelter to IDPs The court referred to international conventions and guidelines on the rights of IDPs, highlighting the state's duty to provide adequate shelter. The respondents, as IDPs, were entitled to protection and assistance from the government. The court noted the lack of specific laws for IDPs in India but underscored the state's responsibility to ensure their basic human rights. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the respondents' right to retain government accommodation until the government provides suitable alternative housing. The judgment stressed the exceptional circumstances and the need for a compassionate approach, directing the government to frame a rehabilitation scheme for such retired employees. The directions were specific to the case and not intended as general precedent.
|
