Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 137 (HP)

NEK RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-06-29

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2004
ORDER Mrs. Justice Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.) Chairman: The applicant who is working as a Driver in the H.P. Administrative Tribunal I was allotted Set No. M. 11/89 at Nabha Shimla vide allotment order dated 18.8.2003 (Annexure A-1). He had earlier submitted representation to the respondents for change of accommodation so that it is nearer to the place of His posting. No order was passed on his representation that is why he has filed the present original application. 2. The applicant has filed the present original application assailing the order dated June 8, 2004 vide which set No. M-18, Type-ll, Brock Hurst, Chotta Shimla has been allotted to the respondent No. 3. According to the applicant the order is arbitrary, mala fide as the allotment order has been made against the statutory rules. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed written reply, Insurance of the allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 3 is admitted but it is denied that the statutory rules have been violated in passing the impugned order. The respondent No. 3 was allotted transit accommodation on 30.9.1995 by the House Allotment Committee held on February 2, 2002 and on consideration of the cases of occupants of transit accommodation for the purpose of allotment of regular accommodation. Therefore, this original application may be dismissed. 4. Whether the applicant has preferential right for allotment of the house in question over and above respondent No. 3 who was not having regular accommodation and whether he was in occupation of transit occupation since September 30, 1995. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant has mainly relied upon the relevant paras of the Himachal Pradesh Allotment, of Governments Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994 (in short the Rules) whichfi are reproduced as under:- . "7. Allotment of residence. - (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules a residence, falling vacant will be allotted by the Director preferably to an applicant desiring a change of accommodation in that type under the provisions of sub-rule,(1) of rule 13 and if not required for that purpose to an applicant without accommodation in that type of residence having the earliest date of priority for that type of residence, subject to the following conditions :- (i) That Director shall not allot a residence of a type higher than to what the applicant is eligible under Rule 5. (ii) That Director shall not compel any applicant to accept a residence of a lower type than to what he is eligible under Rule 5. (iii) That Director, on request from an applicant for allotment of a lower category residence may allot to him a residence of one type below for which the applicant is eligible under Rule 5 on the basis of .his priority date for the same. 2. The Director may cancel the existing allotment of an officer/official and allot to him an alternative residence of the same type or in emergent circumstances an alternative residence of type next below the type of residence in occupation of the officer/official if the residence in occupation of the officer is required to be vacated in public interest. 3. A vacant residence may, in addition to allotment to an officer/official under sub-rule (1) be offered simultaneously to other eligible officers/officials in the order to their priority dates." Clause para 8to12 xxxxxxxxxxxx 13. Change of residence. - (1) An officer/official to whom a residence has been allotted under these rules, may apply for a change of residence within the same type. Not more than one change shall be allowed in respect of one type of a residence during his stay at a station: Provided that no change of residence shall be allowed during a period of six months immediately preceding the date of superannuation. (2) Change shall be offered in the order of receipt of application for the same in the office of Director of Estates/Estate Officers. (3) If an officer/official fails to accept a change of residence offered to him within eight days of the receipt of such order/offer or allotment, he shall not be considered against for a change of allotment of that type. (4) A second change may be allowed for exceptional reasons by the House Allotment C ommittee." 6. The applicant no doubt submitted an application Annexure A-2 f for change of accommodation or the reasons mentioned therein. On i the perusal of the record produced by the respondents it is clear that the respondent No. 3 had also submitted application for change of accommodated which is dated 17.2.2004. He has specifically mentioned that he is residing in the transit accommodation. On i the perusal of the record produced by the respondents it is clear that the respondent No. 3 had also submitted application for change of accommodated which is dated 17.2.2004. He has specifically mentioned that he is residing in the transit accommodation. Thus, having regard to clause 13(2) of the Rules 1994 that the changes shall be offered in the order of receipt of application for the same in the office of Director of Estates/Estate Officers, moved application for change of accommodation prior to the filing of application by the applicant. Thus, considering the facts that due to the exigencies of service and also that respondent No. 3 was occupying transit accommodation since 1995 coupled with the. fact that the house Allotment Committee considered the case of those person who are occupants of transit occupation, and their cases will be considered for allotment of regular accommodation on out of turn basis, no infirmity for the order under challenge is detected. 7. We do not find any ground in to interfere in order allotment to the respondent No. 3 for the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the original application and the same is dismissed. The competent authority is at liberty to consider the case of the applicant as and when some accommodation is vacated or found available in accordance with rules.