Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 441 (JHR)

Vishnudeo Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-22

TAPEN SEN

body2004
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Both the aforementioned two writ petitions have been taken up together in C.W.J.C, No. 3180 the petitioner (Vishnudeo Choudhary) has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to evict the respondent No. 6 (namely Smt. Sushila Sharma who is the petitioner of the other writ petition) from Quarter No. 55/2-4 situated on Road No. 6, Adityapur at Jamshedpur. It has further been prayed that the petitioner should be allowed to reenter the Quarter and the Housing Board be directed to execute deed of final transfer in the name of the petitioner. A further prayer has been made to the effect that the authorities should be directed to initiate action for glaring illegal action taken by one or other officer of the Board in allowing the respondent No. 6 to continue to be in occupation of the Quarter referred to above from 1991 till date which, according to the petitioner, was in fact, allotted to him. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1995 (R) the petitioner Smt. Sushila Sharma) has prayed for quashing the letter of the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board issued under Memo No. 2451/Jamshedpur, dated 27.08.1991 (Annexure 13) by which the allotment of the said Quarter which was made in her favour was sought to be cancelled. She has further prayed for quashing the letter No. 2494 dated 22.08.1994 and 3933 dated 13.12.1994 (Annexures 14 and 14/A) by which the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board requested the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Saraikela, Singhbhum (West) to evict her from the said Quarter. 3. Thus, the bone of contention is that both the writ petitioners of both the cases claim allotment and/or entitlement to the said Quarter. It is therefore necessary to deal with the facts as gathered from the pleadings. 4. In C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R), the petitioner, Vishnudeo Choudhury, has stated that he started his service career as a daily rated worked under TISCO in the year 1960 and that he continued to be employed by TISCO. It is therefore necessary to deal with the facts as gathered from the pleadings. 4. In C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R), the petitioner, Vishnudeo Choudhury, has stated that he started his service career as a daily rated worked under TISCO in the year 1960 and that he continued to be employed by TISCO. However, it is relevant to state here at this stage that while the petitioner has stated in paragraph 4 of the petition that he was a daily rated worker but from his own document brought on record vide Annexure 3, at page 39 of the writ petition, it has been shown that the petitioner himself, while filing an affidavit has stated therein that "I am employed in M/s. Tisco Ltd., as a Inspector from 12.9.1960 and am a regular tenant in House No. 55/2/4 at Adityapur, from 21.9.1964." 5. Similarly, in the same annexure at page 38, the petitioner while signing and/ or submitting his application for allotment had disclosed his annual salary as Rs. 38,234/-. In other words, his salary was Rs. 3186,16 each month. This is an important factor which has to be borne in mind because this fact will become necessary to be taken note of vis-a-vis the policy of allotment. 6. The petitioner has further stated that one Rishishwar Sharma (Respondent No. 5), who is also the husband of Smt. Sushila Sharma was working in the same department. He has further stated that he was initially allotted Quarter No. 334/2-3 in the Adityapur Housing Board in the year 1964 and the other Quarter namely Quarter No. 55/2-4 was allotted to one Mir Bux. By Annexure 1, it is evident that both of them filed an application for mutual exchange and the same was allowed on 27.09.1964 with a direction that they will occupy these Quarters from the date of receipt of Annexure- 1. According to the petitioner, possession of the mutually transferred Quarter namely Quarter No. 55/2-4 was delivered to the petitioner on 24.09.1964 vide Annexure 2. 7. According to the petitioner, possession of the mutually transferred Quarter namely Quarter No. 55/2-4 was delivered to the petitioner on 24.09.1964 vide Annexure 2. 7. In the year 1986, this Quarter along with other Quarter were offered for sale to persons who were in occupation therein and therefore the petitioner, who was in possession of the said Quarter, made a formal application offering to purchase the same vide Application No. 2683 dated 06.06.1986 wherein, as has been noticed earlier, the petitioner disclosed his salary along with an affidavit which was enclosed therewith. 8. In the year 1991, the petitioner has stated that he had to go to his village on some urgent work and he left the house in the care of his friend Rishishwar Sharma. (Husband of Smt. Sushila Sharma) who, was already an allottee of Quarter No. S/12/4 in his own name situated in Adityapur under the Housing Board Complex. However, when he returned from his village he was refused entry into his house and upon inquiry, he came to learn that this Quarter had been allotted by the Board to some lady whose name the respondent No. 5 did not disclose. 9. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition on 09.08.1991 before the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board at Jamshedpur wherein he requested redressal of his grievances and made a prayer for cancellation of such allotment and also prayed that he should be allowed to reenter and take possession of the Quarter in question. He also prayed that the Board should transfer the same in his name. It is thereafter that by letter No. 2451 dated 27.08.1991 (Annexure 6) (i.e., the order impugned in C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1995), the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board at Jamshedpur wrote a letter to one M/s. Auto Weld C-14, First Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur (said to be the employer of Smt. Sushila Sharma) informing them that on their request Quarter No. 55/2/4 had been allotted to her but after local inquiry was made, it was found that Smt. Sushila Sharma had got the allotment by stating incorrect facts. Accordingly, they were informed that the said allotment in favour of Smt. Sushila Sharma was being cancelled. Accordingly, they were informed that the said allotment in favour of Smt. Sushila Sharma was being cancelled. A copy of this letter was sent to the Estate Manager, TISCO, Town Office, Jamshedpur for information with a further request that monthly rent should be deducted from the salary of the first allottee meaning thereby, Vishnudeo Choudhury (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R)). 10. Even thereafter, the petitioner could neither reenter the Quarter nor could take possession thereof. Subsequently, he moved an M.L.A. who wrote a letter on 24.11.1991 addressed to the Chairman of the Board at Patna by Annexure 7. In the mean time, the Government issued formal orders directing execution of sale deed in respect of different Quarters of the Adityapur Housing Complex and a list was enclosed (Annexure 8) for executing the sale agreement with different persons mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, the Government also issued necessary instructions upon the Housing Board to execute a sale agreement in respect of the petitioner but the then Executive Engineer (respondent No. 4), for extraneous considerations did not do anything and instead, proceeded to execute sale deed with other persons mentioned in Annexure 8. The petitioner has made allegations against B.K. Lal (respondent No. 4) at paragraph 17. The petitioner has further stated that in July 1992, directions were received from the Board to evict persons who were in illegal occupation of the Boards Quarter but for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Smt. Sushila Sharma was allowed to continue to be in illegal possession of the quarter in question. 11. Upon failure to get any relief, the petitioner filed an application before the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, jamshedpur on 13.08.1992 which was followed by yet another application on 13.03.1993 (Annexures 10 and 11), The petitioner also filed an application before the General Manager (CC). TISCO Jamshedpur on 23.08.1993 (Annexure 12) wherein he requested that he be allowed House Rent Allowance and Rishishwar Sharma who was himself an owner of another house being Government Flat No. 12/84 at Adityapur be impressed upon to vacate the Quarter. This is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. Thereafter, even TISCO authorities did not take any action whereafter the petitioner again requested the Executive Engineer by his letter dated 10.02.1994 for doing the needful. This is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. Thereafter, even TISCO authorities did not take any action whereafter the petitioner again requested the Executive Engineer by his letter dated 10.02.1994 for doing the needful. Nothing happened and in the mean time, he received a letter from TISCO informing him that since he was not staying in the house in question as was evident from his own application dated 23.08.1993 (Annexure 12), he would not be paid any house rent allowance. 12. The petitioner has further stated at paragraph 24 of the writ application that Rishishwar Sharma (respondent No. 5 and husband of Smt. Sushila. Sharma) was already in possession of the quarter No. S/12-4 and that he is an officer because his name has been entered as an "Inspector" in the "Officers Directory" of TISCO. 13. In this context, the petitioner has stated that under the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation, 1983 the procedure for allotment has been laid down and one criteria is that an allottee can have an allotment "who or his wife/her husband or his/her dependent minor children do not own any land or house fully or partly either on free hold or lease hold basis in the town within 8 Km. of the area of the Municipal Corporation, Municipality, or Notified Area Committee or Area of the Housing State Board of the Improvement Trust or of any other Government Undertaking for which the application is made." (quoted from para 25 of the writ petition). According to the petitioner, Smt. Sushila Sharmas husband being already an allottee of another Quarter, she was therefore not entitled for any allotment as per the aforementioned Regulation. 14. The petitioner has further stated that the action of the Board in allowing Smt. Sushila Sharma to continue to occupy the Quarter in question even after cancellation thereof by letter dated 27.08.1991 and keeping the petitioner out of occupation is not only illegal but is an action which has been resorted to for purposes of showing undue favour to Smt. Sushila Sharing. 15. Having been left with no alternative therefore, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1995 (R) on 01.12.1994. 16. The facts of C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1995 (R) on the other hand are that the petitioner therein (namely Smt. Sushila Sharma) is an industrial worker working as an Office Assistant under Auto Weld, C-41. 15. Having been left with no alternative therefore, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1995 (R) on 01.12.1994. 16. The facts of C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1995 (R) on the other hand are that the petitioner therein (namely Smt. Sushila Sharma) is an industrial worker working as an Office Assistant under Auto Weld, C-41. Industrial Area, 1st Phase, Adityapur at Jamshedpur. Her further case is that she has been residing in Quarter No. 55/2/4 since 1996 along with her family. It was originally allotted to one Mir Bux but subsequently on the basis of an application for exchange, the said Quarter was allotted to the respondent No. 4 (Vishnudeo Choudhury vide letter dated 21.09.1964). This tallies with the fact pleaded by Vishnudeo Choudhury at paragraph 6 of his writ petition. 17. This petitioner has further stated that Vishnudeo Choudhury has a house at Desh Bandhu Lane, Mango Bazar, Dimna Road. Ward No. 9, plot No. 3812, Jamshedpur and that he is a permanent resident of that house. It is her further case that Choudhury let out Quarter No. 55/2/4 to an outsider for about two years and from 1966/67 he let It out again to her on the basis of an oral agreement on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/- and since then she along with her family have been residing in that Quarter paying rent to him but he has never granted any receipt for the same. 18. She has further stated that when it came to her knowledge that subletting a Boards Quarter was not permissible, she immediately therefore made an application on 11.03.1991 (Annexure-2) wherein she stated that since Choudhury had his own house at Mango and since he had given this Quarter to her on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-, it was therefore obvious that he was not in need of this Quarter but she having no house of her own at Jamshedpur required a Quarter and therefore the said Quarter be allotted in her name. Thereafter, it is stated that an inquiry was made by the Boards Officer on 20.03.1991 whereafter a report was to be submitted to the effect that although the Quarter in question had been allotted in favour of Choudhury but she i.e. Smt. Sushila Sharma had been residing for about last 25 years. Thereafter, it is stated that an inquiry was made by the Boards Officer on 20.03.1991 whereafter a report was to be submitted to the effect that although the Quarter in question had been allotted in favour of Choudhury but she i.e. Smt. Sushila Sharma had been residing for about last 25 years. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer called for a report from the employers of Choudhury (namely TISCO) to state as to whether any rent had been deducted from the salary of Choudhury and if so, up to which date. It is her further case that thereafter a report had been submitted and on the basis thereof the Board proceeded against him and by letter dated 31.07.1991 (Annexure 5) informed the Estate Manager of TISCO that upon inquiry it had been learnt, that Choudhury has sublet the Quarter in question in violation of the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment and were therefore considering to cancel the allotment made in his name and at the same time were also considering to allot the Quarter to the person who had been inducted as a tenant (obviously meaning thereby, Smt. Sushila Sharma). Thereafter, another letter from the Executing Engineer dated 03.08.1991 (Annexure 6) was issued under Memo No. 2030 addressed to M/s. Auto Weld (employer of Smt. Sushila Sharma) advising them that the Board was considering to allot the Quarter to the petitioner subject to the condition that she undertakes to deposit the due rent in one lumpsum whereafter she could file an application through them in the prescribed format for such allotment. The Executive Engineer further advised that Smt. Sushila Sharma should be directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2617/- so that appropriate steps could be taken towards allotment of the Quarter in question in favour of the petitioner. 19. Thereafter, M/s. Auto Weld, on the same day i.e. on 03.08.1991 (Annexure 7), wrote a letter to the petitioner informing her about the contents of the letter of the Executive Engineer and requested her to deposit the said amount under intimation to them. 20. On 05.08.1991, Smt. Sushila Sharma wrote to the Executive Engineer vide Annexure 7/A informing him that she has deposited the sum of Rs. 2617.90. False and therefore he requested that necessary steps be initiated for allotment of Quarter No. 55/2-4 in her favour. 20. On 05.08.1991, Smt. Sushila Sharma wrote to the Executive Engineer vide Annexure 7/A informing him that she has deposited the sum of Rs. 2617.90. False and therefore he requested that necessary steps be initiated for allotment of Quarter No. 55/2-4 in her favour. The Executive Engineer of the Board namely Sri B.K. Lall (respondent No. 4 of C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994(R)) thereafter by its letter dated 06.08.1991 (Annexure 8) informed M/s. Auto Weld that Smt. Sushila Sharma having been found to be in occupation of Quarter No. 55/2-4 and having deposited all dues in one lumpsum, the local Allotment Committee had decided to make the allotment of that Quarter in her favour. The Executive Engineer further requested M/s. Auto Weld that Smt. Sushila Sharma should be instructed to take lawful possession of the quarter in question and that monthly deduction from her salary should be deposited in the account of the Board. After such allotment, she took formal possession and showed delivery of possession by a formal application on 08.08.1991 (Annexure 9) and the Board, in its turn made an endorsement on that application itself on 09.08.1991 mentioning "possession given on 9.8.1991." 21. The petitioner has stated that since the date of allotment she has been residing as a lawful allottee and electrical connection also runs in her name. On 28.04.1991 (Annexure 12) she filed an application for sale of the Quarter on the ground that she was an industrial worker drawing an annual salary of Rs. 6,000/-meaning thereby a sum of Rs. 500/- each month. She further stated that she has been residing in the said Quarter since 1967. Subsequently, however her allotment made on 06.06.1991 was cancelled vide letter dated 27.08.1991 (Annexure 13) and in the mean time she came to learn about the filing of C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R) and from that writ petition she came to learn that this cancellation had been made unilaterally and without any notice or information to her. She also came to learn that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saraikela had been requested to take steps for vacating the quarter She then filed the instant writ petition on 29.03.1995 and by Order dated 22.05.1995, while directing this case to be placed along with C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R) an interim order was passed that till further orders she should not be vacated from the Quarter in question. 22. 22. Before this Court proceeds to deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it would be relevant to take first note of the statutory provisions in relation to the regulations on the basis of which allotments are made. The Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983 (Housing Board Regulation No. 1 of 1983 which was published in Bihar Gazette on 24.05.1983) contains Chapter II and this chapter deals with the "principles of allotment" Regulation No. 8 reads as follows :-- "8. A dwelling unit or flat or house site shall be allotted only to such persons-- (a) who must be a citizen of India. (b) who must be domiciled in Bihar. (c) who shall have attained the age of maturity at present 18 years and not insolvent under law on the date of filing application, and (d) who or his wife her husband or his her dependent minor children do not own any land or have fully or partly either on free hold or lease-hold basis in the town within 8 km. of the area of the Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Notified Area Committee or area of the Housing Estate of the Board. Improvement Trust or any other Government undertakings for which application is made. Note : If an applicant has house side or dwelling unit on lease-hold or free hold basis, in any town of the State, either in his own name, or in the name of his wife/husband or minor children, he shall not be eligible for allotments of dwelling units sites." 23. Mr. K.P. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R) has submitted that the husband of the petitioner namely Rishishwar Sharma had already been allotted Quarter No. S/12-4 under the same Housing Board. He further submits that the Officers Directory of TISCO (Annexure 15) in C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R) proves that her husband Rishishwar Sharma was an occupant of S/12-4 and it also shows that he was living their with his spouse and one of his daughter was born on 18.09.1966 while the other was born on 06.06.1971. According to him, this sufficiently establishes that Smt. Sushila Sharma was a housewife living with her husband and children in another house. According to him, this sufficiently establishes that Smt. Sushila Sharma was a housewife living with her husband and children in another house. He further submits that her allegation that Choudhury had let out the quarter in question to her in 1966/67 is a blatant lie because the Officers Directory , shows/proves that in 1961 and 1971 when her two daughters were born, her address has been shown as S/12-4, P.O. Adityapur. He further submits that this being the position, the note appended to Regulation 8 clearly debars Smt. Sushila Sharma from having another unit under the same Board. 24. The learned counsel for Smt. Sushila Sharma, on the other hand, submitted with reference to Annexure 2 of C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1995 (R) that she does not have any house at Jamshedpur, 25. The Officers Directory of TISCO is a document which cannot be brushed aside as being trivial. It is a document containing the list of their officers and it gives details with regard to their family status. Smt. Sushila Sharma, as per her own statement made at paragraph 9 filed an application for allotment of Quarter in her favour on 11.03.1991. On that day her husband was very much in possession of Bihar Housing Boards Quarter No. S-12/4. This would be evident from the fact that the Officers Directory note only shows that in the year 1966 and 1971 two daughters were born but it also shows the description of the quarter as being S-12/4. The cancellation of this Quarter is on 05.04.1997 as is evident from Annexure 8 appended to the counter affidavit filed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board (see running page 88 of C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R)). Moreover, the Officers Directory further shows the status of her husband as an Inspector. Whether she is an industrial worker or not cannot be decided in this writ petition and that too when Choudhury has annexed two documents in his Rejoinder-cum-Supplementary Affidavit at running pages 139 to 141 which inter alia is a letter of Assistant Provident Fund Officer, Jamshedpur which says that M/s. Auto Weld is not covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and that no information is available in that office in respect of establishment. 26. 26. Be that as it may, one fact which stands out loud and clear is that on the day when Smt. Sushila Sharma made the application and the dates on which the Board, in utter haste allotted the Quarter to her (the entire action having been completed between 31.07.1991 to 09.08.1991 (about 9 days)) as is evident from Annexures 5 to 9 of C.W.J.C. No, 752 of 1995 (R), her husband was very much an allottee of Quarter No. S-12/4. The Board took a decision to cancel this allotment only on 05.04.1997 vide Annexure H of the counter affidavit of Jharkhand State Housing Board as is evident from running page 88 of the C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 94(R). That being the position, this was a clear violation of the note appended to Regulation 8 of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulations, 1983. This Court therefore holds that the allotment made in favour of Sushila Sharma was contrary to the aforesaid regulations and therefore the same cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for Smt. Sushila Sharma, during the course of arguments submitted that the allotment of Smt. Sharma was on the basis of 1984 policy and the same has reached finalisation by execution of a registered deed which was executed on 30.08.1999. Even if the allotment was on the basis of 1984 Policy/Decision, the two essential criteria which are sine-qua-non for allotment/permanent settlement under that policy are that the person concerned must be an industrial worker and secondly he must be a person belonging to the economically weaker section of the society. The 1984 policy, brought on record by the Jharkhand State Housing Board in their counter affidavit, reads as follows :-- "Urban Development and Housing Department (Housing) No. 1/YO 1088-84 Confidential MEMORANDUM FOR THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS Sub : Proposal for the sale of 7430 Houses by the Bihar State Housing Board built for industrial worker under the submitted Industrial Housing Scheme. In accordance with the policy of the Ministry of Works and Housing Government of India, New Delhi houses were being constructed under the subsidized Industrial Housing Schemes under State plan and were being allotted so rent accounts Industrial Workers. In accordance with the policy of the Ministry of Works and Housing Government of India, New Delhi houses were being constructed under the subsidized Industrial Housing Schemes under State plan and were being allotted so rent accounts Industrial Workers. In course of time considering the difficulties of Industrial workers and Economically Weaker Section the Government of India, decided to when its previous policy, and accordingly State Government were permitted to transfer the houses constructed under the aforesaid scheme to the occupants of these houses on certain conditions....." Quoted verbatim. 27. So far as the first criteria is concerned, this Court has expressed its doubt taking into consideration the certificate given by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur which is to be found at running page 141 of C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of ,1994 (R). That apart, this Court has already taken note of the fact that on the date when the allotment was made i.e. 09.08.1991 (Annexure 9 of C.W.J.C. 752 of 1995 (R)) her husband was already an allottee and occupant of another Quarter and that he was an "Inspector". Thus, it cannot be said that she is a person belonging to economically weaker section of the society and that too when her husbands name finds incorporation in the Officers Directory of TISCO showing him to be an Inspector. She may be under the employment of M/s. Auto Weld drawing a gross salary of Rs. 6,000/- annually but in view of the certificate from the office of the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner whether she is an industrial worker or not cannot be established. However, she certainly cannot say that she belongs to the economically weaker section of the society. Even if she is able to establish that she is an industrial worker, even then she has to explain as to how she becomes entitled to claim the quarter in question contrary to the note appended to Regulation 8 of the Bihar State Housing Regulation, 1983 because, as has already noticed above, her husband was in possession and an allottee of another Quarter and this allotment was cancelled only on 05.04.1997 (Annexure H appended to the counter affidavit, of Jharkhand State Housing Board). The learned counsel for Smt. Sushila Sharma, further submitted that now a permanent lease deed has been executed on 22.04.1999 and. therefore this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction any further. The learned counsel for Smt. Sushila Sharma, further submitted that now a permanent lease deed has been executed on 22.04.1999 and. therefore this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction any further. This Court does not agree with such a submission because it is seen by conduct of Smt. Sushila Sharma as has been stated by herself in paragraphs 8 and 9 that she had been inducted in the Quarter on the basis of an oral agreement and when after some time she came to know that subletting was not permissible, she immediately applied for allotment of that quarter in her own name of 11,03.1991. Though Choudhury has denied in his counter affidavit the aforementioned statement with regard to his having inducted her as a tenant, yet this Court will take judicial notice of an assertive statement made by the petitioner to the effect that having been inducted, she applied very hurriedly on 11.03.1991 when she learnt that subletting was impermissible. If subletting was impermissible, so was allotment to a person who already had another flat or house either in his own name or in the name of his/her husband equally impermissible under the provisions of the Note appended to Regulation 8 of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulations, 1983. The cancellation of allotment in the name of her husband came in 05.04.1997 (i.e. two years before the permanent lease deed was executed in her favour). The aforementioned argument is also fit to be rejected because this Court has already held that the allotment itself was irregular and therefore, in terms of Clause 16 of the deed of lease, the Board has the right to cancel such allotment/settlement for amongst others, violation of any of the terms and conditions prescribed in the rules and regulations of the Board in this regard. 28. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Housing Board has submitted that Vishnudeo Choudhury cannot have any right in as much as in the year 1964, when the allotment was made in his favour, the same was not a direct allotment in his favour but the Quarter was given in the TISCO pool under the then existing Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme. She further submits that this allotment was a temporary allotment which was only till the period the allottee was under the employment of his employer. 29. She further submits that this allotment was a temporary allotment which was only till the period the allottee was under the employment of his employer. 29. In this context therefore it is relevant to refer to annexure 2 of C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R). The very opening line of this document reads as follows "I am directed to refer to your application mentioned above for allotment of a house flat on rent.......". Thus, the allotment of 1964 was not a permanent allotment and it was on payment of rent with a clear stipulation at Clause 5 thereof that the allottee would not sublet the house or any part thereof to another worker or person. The other clause which is relevant to be taken note of in that document is the one which appears at page 36 and which is indicative of the fact that the allotment shall be effective from the date it is occupied by the allottee and shall so continue until it was cancelled by the Government on any of the following grounds :-- (a) that the allottee ceased to occupy the house; or (b) that he surrendered the same; or (c) that he ceased to be under the employment of employer who/which was to undertake to pay the rent; or (d) it was otherwise cancelled. 30. Thus, from (c) above, it is evident that the allotment was only for the period while the allottee was in the employment of the employer. 31. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Board has submitted, with reference to Annexure B of the counter affidavit field by the Jharkhand State Housing Board and with particular reference to running page 80 thereof that it was for the first time in the year 1984 that the Board took a decision to permanently settle these houses to industrial workers and to the economically weaker sections. 32. Thus, according to her, the petitioner cannot say that he has a right to an allotment made in the year 1964 on the basis of the old scheme. 33. Upon perusal of Annexure B referred to above, it is evident that on 16.07.1984, the Urban Development and Housing Department took a decision for sale of houses/flats belonging to the Bihar State Housing Board which were built for. industrial workers under the aforementioned old Industrial Housing Scheme. 33. Upon perusal of Annexure B referred to above, it is evident that on 16.07.1984, the Urban Development and Housing Department took a decision for sale of houses/flats belonging to the Bihar State Housing Board which were built for. industrial workers under the aforementioned old Industrial Housing Scheme. It is also evident from this decision that such sale was to be confirmed not only amongst industrial workers but also amongst economically weaker sections of the society. 34. The submission of Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhury is correct because it is only after 1984 decision that Vishnudeo Choudhury (petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1994 (R)) filed an application on 06.06.1986 vide Annexure 3 thereof in the prescribed format relating to sale of quarter No. 55/2/4. In this application, he has mentioned at Clause 9 that his annual income through employment in TISCO was Rs. 38,234/-. In other words, his salary, as on that date, was Rs. 3,186,16 per month. This apart, in the affidavit accompanying the said Annexure 3, he has himself mentioned that he was employed in TISCO as an "Inspector" from 12.09.1960. This being the position, Vishnudeo Choudhury cannot also be said to be either an industrial worker nor can he be said to belong to the economically weaker section of the society. 35. Considering the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the opinion that Vishnudeo Choudhury also cannot have a right to claim entitlement to Quarter No. 55/2-4. Consequently, neither of the petitioners of the two writ petitions have any right to claim the quarter in question. For the foregoing reasons therefore this Court is of the opinion that both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed and the interim orders granted on 22.5.1995 and 27.07.1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1995 (R) are hereby vacated. There shall however be no order as to costs. Writ dismissed.