KAPUR ( 1 ) BOTH the petitioners in this Writ Petition are named R. P. Goel. Petitioner No. 2 is the son of. petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was a Report Writer posted at the Minto Road, Government of India Press, New Delhi, appointed in 1952. He was allotted a quarter No. F-2237, Netaji Nagar in New Delhi, which he occupied along with his family members. He retired on 30th Nov. 1982. Petitioner No. 2, the son, was initially a copy-holder at Minto Road, Government of India Press, New Delhi. On 29th March 1973, he was transferred to the Government of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi. On 10th Nov. , 1981, he requested by an application that he be transferred back to the Minto Road Press, but he was not transferred in spite of many vacancies being available. On the retirement of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 claimed eligibility to get the quarter transferred in his favour. He had not drawn house rent allowance for a period of more than three years and he fulfilled the requirements to get the quarter except that he was employed at the Ring Road Press and not the Minto Road Press. According to the petitioner, on various previous occasions, other persons had been transferred to get the benefit of the father s quarter. This happened in the case of Shri Sarabjit Singh, a copyholder in 1983; it also happened in the case of Shri Y. K. Kohli, another copy-holder, and it also happened in the case of Shri Sukhdev Parshad, a Lino-Operator. Furthermore, Shri L. D. Jain s son got the quarter of Shri L. D. Jain in 1985, although he was not even fully entitled according to the petitioners. It is also claimed that even otherwise the respondents have the power to transfer the quarter in question from the pool of the Minto Road Press to the pool of the Ring Road Press. This has happened in the case of Shri G. D. Negi, Overseer, Shri M. K. Debroy, Accountant and Shri Jaswant Singh, A. M. (Administration ). Other examples are the case of Shri B. M. Vats and Shri Baldev Singh, copy-holdr, who got quarters from the general pool although they were entitled to quarters from the Press Pool accommodation. This has happened in the case of Shri G. D. Negi, Overseer, Shri M. K. Debroy, Accountant and Shri Jaswant Singh, A. M. (Administration ). Other examples are the case of Shri B. M. Vats and Shri Baldev Singh, copy-holdr, who got quarters from the general pool although they were entitled to quarters from the Press Pool accommodation. ( 2 ) INSTEAD of allotting the quarter to petitioner No. 2, steps were taken by the Estate Officer to get the premises vacated, but a suit was filed by the petitioners which is pending before a Subordinate Judge. It is also the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner had not drawn house rent allowance for more than three years and had been living with the retired Government servant i. e. , petitioner No. 1, and was, therefore, eligible for regularisation of the quarter. It is further stated that the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioners similarly to the other cases is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) A show cause notice was issued in this petition and reply was filed. It was claimed that the allotment in favour of petitioner No. 1 was cancelled on 1st Feb. , 1983. It was also claimed that simultaneous proceedings were taken before the Senior Subordinate Judge and also the High Court. As far as the petitioners claim on. merits was concerned, it was contended that petitioner No. 2 had been transferred from the Minto Road Press to Ring Road Press on his own request, but his representation for re-transfer was rejected. The cases cited by the petitioners of others who had been transferred in order to get the quarter were sought to be distinguished on the ground that they were cases of transfer and not cases of re-transfer. It was claimed that the petitioner was in a separate class altogether, and hence no question of discrimination arose. As the petitioner had himself asked for transfer in 1972 and got benefits, he was not entitled to re-transfer. ( 4 ) A rejoinder affidavit was filed. It was stated that the suit had been filed because forcible steps were under contemplation to evict the petitioners from the quarter. As the petitioner had himself asked for transfer in 1972 and got benefits, he was not entitled to re-transfer. ( 4 ) A rejoinder affidavit was filed. It was stated that the suit had been filed because forcible steps were under contemplation to evict the petitioners from the quarter. On the merits, it was contended that petitioner No. 2 did not belong to a non-transferable cadre which was obvious from the fact that he was transferred from the Minto Road Press to the Ring Road Press. Reference was also made to the order rejecting the request for transfer on the ground that there was no vacancy in the Minto Road Press. One of the allegations in the counter-affidavit was to the effect that there were separate pools for the Minto Road Press and the Ring Road Press. Regarding this, the rejoinder affidavit stated that the allotment rules merely specified that the residence meant any residence for the time being under the administrative control of the Director of Printing. Again various examples of persons being either transferred or getting the quarters from the other pool have been mentioned. ( 5 ) ANOTHER supplementary affidavit was filed after the rejoinder by the General Manager, Government of India Press, Minto Road. Reference was made to two Office Memorandums dated 1st May, 1981 and 1st Feb. , 1984. It was stated that petitioner No. 2 did not fulfil the conditions for allotment for two reasons (1) that the father and the son belonged to different pools for the purpose of allotment and (2) the son had not stopped house rent allowance for three years before retirement as he stopped drawing the allowance on 28th April, 1981, which was only one and a half years before the father s retirement. The first point is sought to be supported by the Office Memorandum dated 1st May, 1981, but that Memorandum deals only with general pool accommodation and does not seem to have any application to the petitioner s case. The second Office Memorandum dated 1st Feb. , 1984, does not seem to have any application to the present case because petitioner No. 1 retired in 1982. A further rejoinder has been filed regarding all the points which arise in the case. The second Office Memorandum dated 1st Feb. , 1984, does not seem to have any application to the present case because petitioner No. 1 retired in 1982. A further rejoinder has been filed regarding all the points which arise in the case. The most important point for consideration is whether the second petitioner is entitled to the allotment of a quarter when he has not stopped house-rent allowance for a period of three years prior to the retirement. In this connection several examples have been given. In such cases where the house-rent allowance has been drawn by the employee, the same has been directed to be repaid. In the case of Shri V. K. Kansal, Reader of the Press, the son started living with the father with effect from 1st Aug. , 1978, so he was directed to pay back a sum of Rs. 2,165. 00 as house-rent allowance. In the case of Shri Om Parkash, son of late Shri Kanhya, the father died on 30th June, 1978, but the son was drawing house-rent allowance up to 21st July, 1979. It was decided to regularise the quarter in favour of Shri Om Parkash. It was decided that as he had not drawn house-rent allowance for six months prior to the death of the deceased father, it should be regularised. In this supplementary affidavit, it is also pointed out that in the case of Shri Devinder Kumar, copy-holder and Shri Lakinder Singh, Off-set Machineman, house-rent allowance was directed to be refunded merely because, the sons were living with their fathers in Government accommodation. ( 6 ) IT is claimed that if any house-rent allowance has been wrongly paid to petitioner No. 2, it can be refunded. ( 7 ) THE question for our decision is whether the quarter can be regularised in favour of petitioner No. 2 in view of numerous previous examples of this sort. Both the Minto Road Press and the Ring Road Press are the Government of India Presses. We are not satisfied from any material brought to our notice that there are separate pools in the two Presses. But there may be a policy that the employee of one Press will not be granted accommodation in quarters reserved for the other Press. Both the Minto Road Press and the Ring Road Press are the Government of India Presses. We are not satisfied from any material brought to our notice that there are separate pools in the two Presses. But there may be a policy that the employee of one Press will not be granted accommodation in quarters reserved for the other Press. It was stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents as a counter to the writ petition as follows : "with effect from Oct. , 1975, a separate pool of accommodation for the employees of the Minto Road Press and the Ring Road Press was created. Since the petitioner No. 2 is an employee of the Ring Road Press, he has no right for the allotment of a flat out of the Minto Road Press Fool. "however, no document has been filed showing that there was an actual change in the policy. In the rejoinder it was stated that there was no such policy and there were full powers with the respondents to allot any accommodation irrespective of whether the employee was from the Minto Road Press or Ring Road Press. A supplementary affidavit was then filed by the respondents. In this there is no reference to the two pools. However, the office Memorandum dated 1st Feb. , 1981, Annexure R-10 is relied upon. A quotation from this will not be out of place. It reads: OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject -. Concession of ad hoc allotment of General Pool Accommodation admissible to eligible dependents/ relations of Govt. employees on their retirement : In exercise of the powers conferred under SR. 317b-25 of the Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963 the Central Govt. have decided that when a Government servant, who is an allottee of general pool accommodation, retires from service, his/her son, unmarried daughter or wife or husband, as the case may be, may be allotted accommodation from the general pool on an ad hoc basis provided the said relation is a Government servant eligible for allotment of accommodation in general pool and had been continuously residing with the retiring Government servant at least three years immediately preceding the date of his/her retirement. In case, however, a person is appointed to Government service within a period of three years preceding the date of retirement, or had been transferred to the place of posting of the retiring Govt. servant any time within the preceding three years, the date on which he was so appointed or transferred would be the date applicable for the purpose. This decision would cover cases of Government servants retiring on or after 7-11-79. Though this Memorandum deals with the General pool, it equally applies to the press pool. All that it requires is that the Government servant who is eligible must have been residing with the retiring Government servant for at least three years immediately preceding to the date of his/her retirement. It does not refer to any house-rent allowance. In the supplementary affidavit, it appears that though the son was living with the father, he had drawn house-rent allowance up to 1981. It need hardly be said that the houserent allowance is only payable when the son is living in a separate quarter. It appears that the house-rent allowance has been wrongly paid to petitioner No. 2, who was living with his father all along. It, therefore, appears that the second petitioner does fulfil the requirements of this Memorandum. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, the writ as prayed has to be granted. Petitioner No. 2 should be granted the allotment of the quarter with effect from the date of his father s retirement in accordance with the policy. In case it is necessary, the respondents are free to transfer the second petitioner from the Ring Road Press to the Minto Road Press. But, this is left to their discretion. The petition is decided accordingly.