S. B. SINHA ( 1 ) WHETHER the petitioner, who at all material times was and still is working as Sqn Ldr in the Directorate of Technical Development and Production ( AIR), in short DTDandp (AIR) now known as Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance (DGAQA) under the ministry of Defence at New Delhi, is entitled to retain a quarter allotted to him on temporary basis, is the question involved in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Pilot Officer in the Indian Air Force. He was later on posted in the DGAQA. He was allotted quarter No. 234 Dhaula Kuan-11, New Delhi from 2-8- 1995 which was occupied by him on 8-8-1995. It is not in dispute that he now stands permanently seconded to DGAQA w. e. f. 10. 1. 1998 in terms of the extant rules. The petitioner in the year 1999 was promoted to the rank of Wg. Cdr. ( 3 ) ON or about 30-11-2000 he received a communication to the effect that he. having been permanently seconded to DGAQA w. e. f. 10. 1. 1998, was not entitled to regular defence pool accommodation. It was stated therein that the petitioner was liable to be charged market rent by way of damages, inter alia, on the ground that he ceased to be in the regular service of the Indian Air Force under the first respondent. In his reply dated 7-12-2000, the petitioner disputed that he ceased to be a regular officer of Indian Air Force on his permanent secondment to DGAQA, inasmuch as : (i) he continued to be a commissioned officer of the indian Air Force in uniform; (ii) he continued to be governed by the provisions of the Air force Act, 1950, and the rules and regulations made thereunder and (iii) all his pay and allowances were paid by the Indian Air Force from their budget allocation in the same way as he used to get his pay and allowances prior to his permanent secondment. ( 4 ) THE petitioner would contend that as far the scale of pay applicable to the case of the officers of defence service is concerned, he being in the category of officers from Major to brigadier, he was entitled to a married accommodation consisting of 139. 35 sq mts of main unit, 22. 30 sq mts of servant quarters and 20. 35 sq mts of main unit, 22. 30 sq mts of servant quarters and 20. 90 sq mts of garage. ( 5 ) THE petitioner made a representation to DGAQA on 13. 12. 2000 contending that if he was not held to be entitled to regular defence pool accommodation, he being an officer of the indian Air Force is entitled to a regular Govt accommodation as per terms of his employment. ( 6 ) ON the said representation of the petitioner, a recommendation was made. by the Joint director Administration that he be allowed to retain the regular defence pool accommodation till such time another suitable accommodation in his entitled category of officers is made available to him. ( 7 ) THE second respondent, however, by reason of a communication dated 7. 12. 2000, stated that as per Govt of India. Ministry of Defence s letter dated 31. 1. 1990, officers posted on deputation to DRDO. DGQA. Coast Guard and other departments under the Ministry of defence and are permanently seconded are not to be allotted regular defence pool accommodation built out of Army budget However, hired accommodation shall be allotted to them under the arrangement of CAO. The petitioner was further informed that he was not entitled to retain regular defence pool accommodation. ( 8 ) ON receipt of the said communication, the petitioner sent another representation on 15. 1. 2001 asking DGAQA for early disposal of his representation dated 13. 12. 2000. By a communication dated 23. 2. 2001 the petitioner was intimated that he is liable to pay damages as per market rent w. e. f. 28. 1. 1998, to which the petitioner sent another representation. The petitioner would contend that action of the second respondent herein in denying accommodation on regular defence pool accommodation is based upon a letter of Govt of india. Ministry of Defence dated 31. 1. 1990 which the petitioner has questioned as illegal on the ground that even if the petitioner being seconded in the DGAQA, he continues to be an officer in the defence services. ( 9 ) MR Luthra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the policy decision of the Central Govt as contained in letter dated 31. 1. 1990 is without any rationale and thus must be held to be ultra vires. ( 9 ) MR Luthra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the policy decision of the Central Govt as contained in letter dated 31. 1. 1990 is without any rationale and thus must be held to be ultra vires. ( 10 ) THE respondent in their counter-affidavit, inter alia, contended that as per Accommodation Rules, 1991, service officers posted permanently to Armed Forces Headquarters/lnter service organisations and units attached thereto at Delhi/new Delhi are eligible for allotment of married accommodation of the following types: a) regular accommodation and b) temporary accommodation including either hostel or hired accommodation and as such in terms of the aforementioned letter of the Ministry, of Defence dated 31. 1. 19990, the petitioner being permanently seconded, was not entitled to any accommodation built out of Army budget but was entitled for hired accommodation under arrangement with the first respondent. THE respondents would further contend that the rationale behind such a decision is that the defence pool accommodation are meant to be made available to those eligible officers who had been posted in the field station when posted at Delhi which is a peace station for affording them an opportunity to live with their families for one tenure only before they are posted out again to field stations. PERMANENTLY seconded officers who have permanently been absorbed in inter service organisations have longer tenure in Delhi and as their settlement in duty station is better assured, therefore, they are shifted to hired accommodation as per terms of Govt of India letter dated 31. 1. 1990. ( 11 ) MR Luthra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that only because the petitioner has been permanently seconded to DGAQA, the same by itself would not mean that he has ceased to be on the rolls of the Indian Air Force inasmuch as he has been drawing his salary from Indian Air Force only. Counsel would contend that at present there are only two employees including the petitioner who are permanently seconded and thus they should not be denied an accommodation from the defence pool particularly when DGAQA does not have accommodation of its own and as such they cannot be equated with other inter service organisation. Counsel would contend that at present there are only two employees including the petitioner who are permanently seconded and thus they should not be denied an accommodation from the defence pool particularly when DGAQA does not have accommodation of its own and as such they cannot be equated with other inter service organisation. ( 12 ) MR Maninder Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner is no longer on deputation having been permanently seconded to DGAQA, and thus the policy decision of the Govt of India dated 31. 1. 19990 shall squarely apply in the instant case. According to the learned counsel the said policy decision is in existence since. 1990 and therefore vires thereof cannot be permitted to be questioned at this late stage. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been given his choices but he having not given his option, is not entitled to maintain this writ petition. According to the learned counsel the petitioner having not alleged any malafide nor having alleged any discrimination, this writ petition should not be entertained. Counsel would contend that if the petitioner is accommodated on sympathetic ground, a large number of officers, similarly placed, would come forward to claim such accommodation. THE short question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the said policy decision of the Govt of India, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there does not exist any rationale behind the same. BY means of the impugned circular procedures have been laid down regulating the retention of Govt accommodation in the following terms: " (B[cj1]) (LL) Officers posted on deputation to DRDO, DGQA and Coast Guard and other Departments under Ministry of Defence at Delhi and New Delhi. I) Deputationists who are permanently seconded shall not be allotted Regular defence pool accommodation built out of Army Budget. However, hired defence pool accommodation shall be allotted under the arrangement of CAO II) Deputationists officers, who are permanently seconded to DRDO, DGQA and Coast Guard and have been allotted regular defence pool accommodation by the cao prior to issue of this letter will be allowed to retain that accommodation till alternative hired accommodation is provided to them by the CAO or they are posted out of the station whichever is earlier. III) Deputationists officers, who are permanently seconded to DRDO, DGQA and coast Guard and have been allotted regular defence pool accommodation by the station HQrs Delhi prior to issue of this letter will be allowed to retain that accommodation till alternative accommodation is provided to them by their departments or they are posted out of the station or for a maximum period of two years whichever is earlier. IV) Service officers posted on tenure basis to Coast Guards will be governed under the provisions of para 1 (a) (ii) and (iii) above. However, officers posted on tenure bar-is to DRDO and DGQA shall be treated at par with other regular officers posted to defence HQrs in the matter of allotment of accommodation. C) In addition to the above, the service officers proceeding on deputation to civil organisation on tenure basis including DRDO, DGQA, Cost Guard under Ministry of defence (where they are not in receipt of deputation allowance) shall be entitled to: A) if in occupation of regular or hired accommodation and the deputation is in the same station, the officers are to be permitted to retain the accommodation in occupation. B) Hired accommodation only, if the deputation is to a station other than the last duty station. " ( 13 ) THE respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, in their counter-affidavit categorically disclosed the rationale behind the said policy decision. The principal accommodation pool built of the defence budget is. meant for officers who are posted to field/non-family station. Their exists a waiting list for- regular defence pool accommodation as and- when they are posted at Delhi for short duration. If a policy decision is taken to give preference to such officers who were earlier posted to field/non-family station for having an accommodation so that they are afforded an opportunity to live with their families for one tenure only, no illegality can be deciphered therefrom. Such a decision is based on a rationale having an intelligent differentia and thus in our considered opinion the same cannot be said to be ultra vires the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was sent on deputation. He has been permanently seconded to DGAQA from 10. 1. 1998. He thus stands permanently absorbed in the concerned inter service organisation and his lien with parent service stands forfeited. The petitioner was sent on deputation. He has been permanently seconded to DGAQA from 10. 1. 1998. He thus stands permanently absorbed in the concerned inter service organisation and his lien with parent service stands forfeited. A logical corollary thereof would be that he would not be entitled to occupy an accommodation meant for regular employees of Indian Air Force. In the policy decision dated 31. 1. 1990, it has been categorically stated that Deputationists who are permanently seconded would not be allotted regular defence pool accommodation and they would only be entitled to hired defence pool accommodation. The petitioner indisputably was advised to vacate the regular accommodation and report to the office of the second respondent for alternative hired accommodation which he did not comply. It is not in dispute that thereafter the Estate Officer initiated a proceedings against him under Section 4 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of unauthorised occupants ) Act by issuing a show cause notice on 28. 2. 2001. The respondent have contended, which has not been denied or disputed that as he failed to inform about his permanent secondment in DGAQA which he was liable to do and the said fact came to knowledge of respondent No. 2 from a communication dated 10. 12. 2000 from Air Headquarter, appropriate proceedings were initiated soon thereafter. It may be true that on the representations made -by the petitioner a recommendation was made by the Joint Director Admn but such recommendations cannot supersede the policy decision adopted by the Central Govt. It appears from the record that on 23. 1. 2001 the second respondent had offered a hired accommodation. A further communication was sent to him on 23. 2. 2001 which is in the following terms: "1 [cj2]. Reference our note of even number dated 29-12-2000. 2. It is reiterated that Wg Cdr J. Sahu, who was permanently seconded with DGAQA on 27th Jan 1998, stands ineligible for allotment/ retention of DP regular accn no. 234, Dhaula Kuan-ll with effect from that date, as per relevant rules and the officer was to move forthwith to hired accn. Under arrangements of CAO. 3. The officer was duly offered available hired accn vide our offer letter No. 97666/maj- col/hired/cao/e-l dated 23rd Jan 2001. However the same was not accepted by him. 4. Wg Cdrj. Sahu is therefore liable to be charged damages rent w. e. f. 28. 1. Under arrangements of CAO. 3. The officer was duly offered available hired accn vide our offer letter No. 97666/maj- col/hired/cao/e-l dated 23rd Jan 2001. However the same was not accepted by him. 4. Wg Cdrj. Sahu is therefore liable to be charged damages rent w. e. f. 28. 1. 1998 till date of vacation. Suitable action under the PPE Act 1971 is also liable to be taken against him. 5. You are requested to inform the officer accordingly and also advise him to contact cao s office immediately for further necessary action failing which action as stated in para 4 above will be taken without further notice. ( 14 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever that second respondent has merely been following the principles as contained in the guidelines issued by the Central Govt. The petitioner in terms of the aforementioned policy decision was only entitled to a hired accommodation. It is now not in dispute that instruction contained in the letter dated 31. 1. 1990 are applicable to officers of DGAQA, both as regards deputationists as aiso permanently seconded officers in the Ministry of Defence. The very fact that it has been categorically stated in the said letter that deputationists who are permanently seconded will not be entitledto accommodation built out of Army Budget but would be entitled to hired accommodation is a clear pointer to the fact that the said policy decision is attracted in the case of the petitioner also. The said letter has to be read in its entirety. In this writ petition this court is not concerned as to whether the petitioner is getting his salary from the Indian Air Force 01 not, inasmuch as, on a perusal of letter dated 27. 1. 1998 as contained in Annexure-B to the writ petition it is evident that he has been permanently seconded. The said tetter dated 27. 1. 1998 reads thus : "1 Son Ldr J Sahu ( 16324) AE (L) is permanently seconded to the Ministry of defence, DGAQA organisation w. e. f. 10. 1. 1998 vide MOD I. D. No. 2203/5/d3aqa/ af Admn/1398 /11/97/d (HAL) dated 14 Jan 98 under the terms and conditions contained in Govt of India Ministry of Defence letter No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 1998 vide MOD I. D. No. 2203/5/d3aqa/ af Admn/1398 /11/97/d (HAL) dated 14 Jan 98 under the terms and conditions contained in Govt of India Ministry of Defence letter No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dated 24 Feb 92. The officer concerned has also signified his agreement to his permanent secondment to that organisation. 2. The permanent secondment of the officer will be notified in the Gazette of India in due course. " ( 15 ) IN the aforementioned situation, the petitioner has been treated to be an officer of DGAWA and not of Indian A;r Force and therefore no exception thereto can be taken. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.