2021 (8) TMI 1293 - SC - Indian Laws

Retention of Government accommodation by a retired personnel - HELD THAT - The orders of the High Court are unsustainable. In Shiv Sagar Tiwari 1996 (12) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT the large-scale allotment of Government houses made out of turn in eleven categories was examined under the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules 1963. All such categories were of serving employees who were given out-of-turn allotments. The then Minister of Urban Development in the Central Government was asked to pay a sum of 60 lakhs as exemplary damages by order dated 8.11.1996. The Government accommodation could not have been allotted to a person who had demitted office. No exception was carved out even in respect of the persons who held Constitutional posts at one point of time. It was held that the Government accommodation is only meant for in-service officers and not for the retirees or those who have demitted office. In the present case Dhar was an officer of the Intelligence Bureau. He has drawn his salary and availed of alternative accommodation for 15 years after his retirement along with pensionary benefits. There is no indefeasible right in any citizen for allotment of government accommodation on a nominal licence fee. The government accommodation is meant for the serving government employees to facilitate the discharge of their duties. The government accommodation is not meant for the retirees. The accommodation to the retirees is at the cost of serving officers - Dhar and such like persons are not from the poorest Section of the migrants but have worked in the higher echelons of the bureaucracy. To say that they are enforcing their right to shelter only till such time the conditions are conducive for their safe return is wholly illusory. No one is sure that at what point of time the condition will be conducive to the satisfaction of the migrants. Such benevolence and preferential right to Section of the citizens is unfair to the serving officers. Dhar like persons should have compassion for their fellow employees who may be without any government accommodation. The right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation. The government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse. The orders passed by the High Court are absolutely without any basis and in the absence of any policy of allotment of government accommodation to a retired government servant who may be victim of terrorism. The orders passed are wholly arbitrary and irrational - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Retention of Government Accommodation by Retired Employees
2. Jurisdiction and Application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971
3. Right to Shelter under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
4. Applicability of Precedents and Article 142 of the Constitution
5. Government Policies on Accommodation for Displaced Persons

Detailed Analysis:

1. Retention of Government Accommodation by Retired Employees
The core issue in this case is the right of a retired government employee, who is a Kashmiri migrant, to retain government accommodation post-retirement. The respondent, who retired on 31.10.2006, was initially allowed to retain the accommodation for one year. He then sought to retain it on a nominal license fee until conditions in Jammu & Kashmir improved. The Supreme Court held that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and not retirees. The Court emphasized that allowing retirees to retain government accommodation indefinitely defeats the purpose of such housing, which is to facilitate the discharge of duties by serving officers.

2. Jurisdiction and Application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971
The respondent was served with an eviction notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971. The eviction order was initially stayed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, but later dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the respondent’s writ petition, which was later challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the orders of the High Court were unsustainable and emphasized that the right to retain government accommodation post-retirement is not supported by any policy.

3. Right to Shelter under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
The respondent argued that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Supreme Court acknowledged this but clarified that this right does not extend to retaining government accommodation indefinitely. The Court stated that the right to shelter is satisfied when alternative transit accommodation or cash compensation is provided, as per government policy. The Court emphasized that the right to shelter does not mean the right to government accommodation.

4. Applicability of Precedents and Article 142 of the Constitution
The respondent relied on the precedent set in J.L. Koul v. State of J & K, where the Supreme Court allowed retirees to retain government accommodation under Article 142. The Supreme Court clarified that directions under Article 142 are not binding precedents and should not be treated as the law declared by the Court. The Court emphasized that the relief granted in J.L. Koul was based on the special facts of that case and should not be generalized.

5. Government Policies on Accommodation for Displaced Persons
The Supreme Court referred to various judgments, including Lok Prahari (I) and (II), S.D. Bandi, and Shiv Sagar Tiwari, which held that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and not retirees. The Court noted that the government has policies for providing transit accommodation or cash compensation to displaced persons, but these policies do not extend to allowing retirees to retain government accommodation indefinitely. The Court held that the orders of the High Courts were de hors any policy and were arbitrary and irrational.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the writ petition challenging the eviction order. The respondent was granted time until 31.10.2021 to vacate the premises. The appellant was directed to submit a report on the action taken against retired officials occupying government accommodation post-retirement by 15.11.2021.