Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1995 DIGILAW 1345 (SC)

Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India

1995-11-20

K.S.PARIPOORNAN, KULDIP SINGH

body1995
JUDGMENT : I.A.No. 18 taken on board. It is dismissed. 2. Mr. K.T.C. Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Director of Estates, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, has placed before us lists of various persons who have been permitted to continue to stay in the Government houses under various categories in the discretion of the Government. The prominent categories mentioned by Mr. Tulsi are as under:- (1) Eminent Indians in memory of whom the houses ought to be converted into memorials. (2) Persons/families who have held high offices in the country from the President of India to the Deputy Prime Minister of India. (3) Freedom fighters (4) Journalists (5) Social workers (6) Artists (7) Humanitarian grounds (8) Eminent public men in the discretion of the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation/Cabinet. (9) Security, only zand 2 plus categories. (10) Medical ground. 3. Mr. Tulsi states that the above categories are of those persons who are not in Government service. The non-Government servants who are not otherwise entitled to the allotment of Government houses can be allotted Government houses in the discretion of the Government in case they fall into any of the above categories. So far as the Government servants are concerned, Mr. Tulsi states that in the discretion of the Government out-of-tum allotment can be given to the following categories:- (1) Functional grounds: Mr. Tulsi explains that keeping in view the functions attached to the job assigned to a person concerned he can be given out-of-tum allotment. (2) Medical ground like cancer, T.B. etc. Keeping in view the serious nature of the medical problem, to be determined by the Cabinet Committee. (3) Security. 4. Before the question as to how much Government discretion in the matter of allotment of houses is justified, we are of the view that the Government should place on the record the criteria justifying the creation of each of the categories mentioned above. The Government may do so by filing an affidavit of a responsible officer like Director of Estates. This may be done within ten days from today. The affidavit shall further indicate the total number of houses in possession of the persons belonging to each of the categories as at present. We are prima facie of the view that any guidelines which the Government may lay down in this respect must be either in public interest or in the national interest. The affidavit shall further indicate the total number of houses in possession of the persons belonging to each of the categories as at present. We are prima facie of the view that any guidelines which the Government may lay down in this respect must be either in public interest or in the national interest. There must be a laudable objective sought to be achieved for bringing a category within the discretionary quota of the Government. 5. Copy of this Order along with the affidavit filed by the Government shall be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Ashok Desai, Sr. Advocate, who are assisting this Court in this case. 6. This matters to be listed on 16th November, 1995 at 2 P.M. 7. Pursuant to this Courts Order dated September 21, 1995, Shri K.K. Madan, Director General of works, CPWD, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, has filed an affidavit dated 18th October, 1995. The contents of the affidavit and the annexure attached along with the affidavit give a sorry state of affairs. The affidavit states that as at present the CPWD has taken over 264 quarters for repair. Most of the quarters which are in possession of the CPWD for repair purposes were taken over by the CPWD as back as 1987/1988/1990 and thereafter. There are serious allegations that the employees of the CPWD are utilising these quarters for extraneous consideration. Mr. Tulsi has informed us that an enquiry into this aspect has been covered by the Government. We are rather surprised the way Government servants are begin deprived of their right to allotment of Government quarters on the pretext that quarters are handed over to the CPWD for repairs. It is a pity that for a period of almost a decade the CPWD has not been able to repair quarters which consist of 1 to 3 bedrooms. 8. We direct Shri K.K. Madan, Director General of Works, CPWD, the three Chief Engineers of different Zones, namely, Shri K.K. Khanna, Shri Gulzar Singh and Shri Ravinder Lal and all the Superintending Engineers and the Executive Engineers who are holding their posts today (Mr. 8. We direct Shri K.K. Madan, Director General of Works, CPWD, the three Chief Engineers of different Zones, namely, Shri K.K. Khanna, Shri Gulzar Singh and Shri Ravinder Lal and all the Superintending Engineers and the Executive Engineers who are holding their posts today (Mr. Tulsi shall place their names on the record within one week from today) to hand over all those quarters which were taken over by the CPWD during the period 1987/1988/1989, fully repaired and fit for habiration, to the Estate Office on or before December 31, 1995. The remaining quarters, the possession of which was taken, by the CPWD during or after 1990 should be handed over after full repairs to the Estate Office before the and of February, 1986. We make it clear that violation of any part of this Order shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Photocopy of this Order be sent to all the officers mentioned in this Order and also to the Director of Estates within three days from today. As and when the enquiry, mentioned by Mr. Tulsi, conducted by the Government is completed, the report shall be placed before this Court. 9. It is stated by Mr. Tulsi that some of the quarters are being used by the CPWD as stores. A number of quarters are being used by the employees of the CPWD for residence purposes. There are still quarters which are stated to be occupied by the watch and ward staff. The Director General shall file an affidavit giving details of all these quarters which are being utilised by the CPWD in the above manner and also the authority under which the quarters are being used in the said manner. The affidavit shall be filed within two weeks from today. 10. Pursuant to this Courts Order dated September 21, 1995, the Director of Estate has placed before us list of those cases where the ward/dependent has been sharing accommodation with the earlier allottee prior to his retirement/death. There are two instructions of the Government on the subject. The instructions in the Office Memorandum dated July 5, 1976 provides a period of sharing of six months before the retirement/death of the original allottee. The instructions were modified by the subsequent Office Memorandum dated May 1, 1981 whereunder the period of sharing was increased from six months to three years. The instructions in the Office Memorandum dated July 5, 1976 provides a period of sharing of six months before the retirement/death of the original allottee. The instructions were modified by the subsequent Office Memorandum dated May 1, 1981 whereunder the period of sharing was increased from six months to three years. The instructions dated May 1, 1981 were made operative to the persons who retired on or after 7.11.1979. We are of the view that the Government instructions issued on May 1,1981 could not be made operative retrospective. We, therefore, hold that the instructions dated May 1, 1981 would be operative from the said date. It is not disputed that the wards of the persons listed whereunder are covered by the Government instructions dated July 5, 1976. All of them have the sharing period of more than six months (1) Mr. Swaroop Singh, H-53, S.N. Puri. (2) Mr. G.N. Singh, E-1694, Netaji Nagar. (3) Mr. I.D. Gupta, 13/22, Dev Nagar. (4) Mr. N.S. Bishat, G-275, Nanak Pura. (5) Mr. Durga Prasad, 7/108, Lodhi Colony. (6) Mr. N.K. Govila, 233, Laxmi Bai Nagar. 11. We direct the Estate Office to regularise the allotment so far as above cases are concerned in the names of their respective wards as per their entitlements under the rules/instructions. The Director of Estates is present in Court. He states that in all such cases the normal rule is that they are entitled to the category one below to their own entitlement. Be that as it may, they will only be allotted the category to which they are entitled under the Rules. Mr. O.P. Jaiswal, Sector V/454, M.B. Road. 12. Mr. O.P. Jaiswal retired on September 30, 1994. Three years sharing is necessary under the Government instructions dated May 1, 1981. Mr. Bhushan Kumar, the ward of Mr. O.P. Jaiswal, has shared for about 25 months. There are two similar cases in which the Director of Estate has filed a review. 'This matter be listed along with those cases. Mr. R.N. Kachroo, Section 1/33, R.K. Puram. 13. Mr. R.N. Kachroo retired on April 3, 1994. His son R.K. Kachroo, who is present before us, is in Government service, but he has not shared the accommodation with his father even for a day. He is not entitled to the allotment of the house. He has to stand in queue for allotment. We direct Mr. R.N. Kachroo and Mr. Mr. R.N. Kachroo retired on April 3, 1994. His son R.K. Kachroo, who is present before us, is in Government service, but he has not shared the accommodation with his father even for a day. He is not entitled to the allotment of the house. He has to stand in queue for allotment. We direct Mr. R.N. Kachroo and Mr. R.K. Kachroo to vacate house No. Sector 1/33, R.K. Puram, before December 31, 1995 and hand over vacant possession to CPWD. Mr. S.S. Sharma, D-709, Mandir Marg. 14. Mr. S.S. Sharma retired on April 30, 1994. His married daughter Mrs. Poonam Chandra claims regularisation. She has not shared the accommodation with her father even for a day. She is not entitled to the allotment in terms of Government instructions dated May 1, 1981. Learned counsel for Mr. Sharma states that Mr. Sharma has been re-employed on regular basis on the same post from where he retired and as such is entitled to the house. The Director of Estates may look into this aspect and in case he is entitled to the allotment that may be done. Otherwise, the matter may be placed before this Court within two weeks from today. 15. List this matter on 9th November, 1995 at 2 P.M.