JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. 1. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who were employed as Selection Grade Auditors in the Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts (ORS), Meerut Cantt, under the Govt. of India, were allotted residential accommodation from out of defence pool where they had been residing along with their family members. PETITIONERs 3 and 4 are sons of petitioners 1 and 2 respectively and they are also in service under the Govt. of India since 1973 and 1974 respectively. 2. The case of the petitioners is that since petitioners 3 and 4 had been residing with their parents in the Govt. accommodation they were entitled to continue to reside therein on the retirement of their parents. A reference has been made to a Govt, policy decision taken in 1965, copy whereof is Annexure 1' to the writ petition, and also to subsequent rules dated 17-10-1978 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Allegation in the petition is that petitioner No. 1 retired on 31st March, 1979 and petitioner No. 2 retired on 1-6-79. The petitioners 3 and 4 had been residing with their ever since 1976 i e. for more than six months of the retirement of petitioners 1 and 2 and, as such they were entitled to get the benefit of the rules dated 17-10-78. The grievance made by the petitioner is that inspite of their application for regularisation of their possession authorities were not inclined to do so and have directed the petitioners to vacate the accommodation in question in utter violation of the rules dated 17-10-1978. A prayer for a writ of mandamus has been made for quashing the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 on 21-6-79 and 26-10-1979 rejecting petitioners' application for regularisation and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the possession of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4. 3. In reply, the case of the Union of INdia is that petitioner No. 3 is a permanent auditor in CD. A. while petitioner No. 4 is a temporary clerk in the office of the Director of Audit, Defence Service and they have been residing with their parents only since April, 1978 and July, 1976 respectively. It is contended that the rules referred to by the petitioners are applicable only in respect of civilian employees paid from Defence Service Estimates. A. while petitioner No. 4 is a temporary clerk in the office of the Director of Audit, Defence Service and they have been residing with their parents only since April, 1978 and July, 1976 respectively. It is contended that the rules referred to by the petitioners are applicable only in respect of civilian employees paid from Defence Service Estimates. The petitioners being employed in Defence Accounts Department their cases were governed by Rules framed by Director of Estate, Ministry of Works and Housing. Their applications were, therefore, rightly rejected as they were only entitled to get Govt accommodation out of CD.A. C.C. pool but not from the Govt. accommodation out of the pool meant for ORS North, Meerut. It was also contended that the concession for ad-hoc allotment had also been withdrawn with effect from 1-5-78 by the Ministry of Works and Housing. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners' counsel has informed us that petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 have withdrawn the petition and they are no longer pressing it. The petition is, therefore, dismissed so far as petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned. As regards petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned the main submissions made on their behalf is that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be abrogated or abridged in any manner by any executive fiat or decision. It is, therefore, contended that Annexure CA-1, which is a letter issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing Directorate dated 1-5-78, cannot have the effect of nullifying the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution on 17th October, 1978. 5. We have been handed over the copy of the Central Gazette dated 28-10-89 where SRO No. 308 has been published. The President, in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, made certain rules in order to regulate the allotment of residences to the civilians in defence service in respect of the residences specifically constructed for them. These rules are called 'Allotment of Residences (Defence Pool Accommodation for Civilians in Defence Service) Rules, 1978. These rules apply to all the civilians paid for defence service estimates. 6. The contention of the respondent was that the decision taken by the Government in the year 1965 was only in respect of defence civilians and the petitioners were not covered by it. These rules apply to all the civilians paid for defence service estimates. 6. The contention of the respondent was that the decision taken by the Government in the year 1965 was only in respect of defence civilians and the petitioners were not covered by it. It will be pertinent to point out here that by letter Annexure 2' dated 6-3-71 the Govt. of India decided to transfer matters relating to pension and retirement benefits of the personnels of Defence Accounts Department only from defence service estimate to civil estimates. This, however, did not effect the privileges and facilities such as accommodation, supply of forms and transport on duty etc. and these continued to be paid from defence service estimates as hitherto. Thus so far as the question of allotment of accommodation etc. was concerned the employees of the C.D.A. continued to be governed by same Rules as applicable to employees paid from defence service estimates. In view of this letter the rules framed in 1978 with respect to the allotment of accommodation, in our opinion, shall apply to civilian employees of the Defence Accounts Department as they were still being paid from Defence Service Estimates. These rules, however, have two significant provisions firstly; the allotment of residence to the civilians in defence service is continued -in respect of those rosidences which were specifically constructed for them and, secondly, the one contained in Rule 20 of these Rules. This Rule reads as under : "Allotment to certain relations in certain cases : (1) When a Govt Servant who has been allotted Govt accommodation retires from service or dies while in service, his son, daughter, wife husband or father be allotted Govt. accommodation on an ad-hoc basis provided that the said relation is Govt. servant eligible for Govt. accommodation and had been sharing accommodation with the retiring or deceased officer for at least six months before the date of retirement or death. (2) THEse same residence may be regularised in the name of the relation if he or she is eligible for a residence of that type or a higher type. servant eligible for Govt. accommodation and had been sharing accommodation with the retiring or deceased officer for at least six months before the date of retirement or death. (2) THEse same residence may be regularised in the name of the relation if he or she is eligible for a residence of that type or a higher type. In other cases the said relation may be allotted a residence or his or her entitled type if available at the time of failing that a type next below, if acceptable to the allottee (3) Where the accommodation has not been specifically built for Defence civilians, the allotment of accommodation to the son or daughter or wife or husband or father of the deceased Govt. servant shall be subject to the condition that it is surplus to the requirement of entitled Service personnel," According to the petitioner since petitioner No. 3 was residing with petitioner No. I for more than six months before his retirement and he is employed as a permanent auditor in the Defence Accounts Department he is entitled to continue to reside in the same accommodation after the retirement of petitioner No. 1. We, however, do not agree with this submission. The retirement of petitioner No. 3. is only for that type of residence to which he may be entitled and this also subject to the condition that he and his family members had been sharing this accommodation with petitioners for at least six months before the date of his retirement. If the accommodation in which he was residing with petitioner No. 1 was of the type to which he too would be entitled according to the post held by him, then certainly he could continue to reside there. If, however, his entitlement is only for an accommodation of a lower type then he may be entitled to allotment of one of that kind provided one was available failing which he would be entitled to an accommodation of type next below to that type subject to his agreeing to its allotment. 7. The question whether petitioner No. 3 is entitled to the accommodation in question must, therefore, be left to be decided by the authorities in terms of Rule 20 of the 1978 Rules. 7. The question whether petitioner No. 3 is entitled to the accommodation in question must, therefore, be left to be decided by the authorities in terms of Rule 20 of the 1978 Rules. We, however, overrule the contention of opposite parties that petitioners 1 and 3 were not governed by 1978 rules, not being civilian employees paid from Defence Service Estimates. 8. In view of above, the petition succeeds, though partly. The orders dated 21-6-1979 and 28-10-1979 (Annexures 4' and 5' to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the application of petitioners 1 and 3 in the light of the observations made earlier. The respondents may now allot or regularise possession of the petitioner No. 3 for the accommodation already in his occupation or allot any other accommodation to him of the type to which he may be entitled in terms of Rule 20 of Allotment of Residence (Defence Pool Accommodation for Civilian in Defence Service) Rules, 1978. We however, make no order as to costs. The petition in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 4 is concerned is dismissed as not pressed. Petition dismissed.