Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1537 (JHR)

Lal Chand Kanojia v. Union of India

2015-12-10

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by notices dated 29.06.2015, 09.07.2015, 11.07.2015 etc, directing the petitioners to vacate the quarters by 22.07.2015, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners who are permanent ministerial staffs of the Punjab Regiment are working as tailor, washerman, cook, safai mazdoor, bootmaker, barbar etc. The petitioner no. 25 is office superintendent. The petitioners were initially allotted quarters within the campus of Punjab Regiment, Ramgarh. Some of them are residing there for about 32 to 35 years. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are meagrely paid ministerial employees of the Punjab Regiment. At times they are asked to perform duties at midnight. In view of meagre salary paid to them, it may not be possible for them to take on rent suitable alternative accommodations. Mr. A Allam, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that within the campus, the respondents have permitted several other offices including post-office, office of the Audit and Accounts, Bazar, etc. and while those quarters are not demolished, the respondents have taken a decision to demolish the quarters allotted to the petitioners. Referring to the notice issued to the petitioner no. 1, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that on the one hand the respondents averred that the provision under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1973 would be enforced for vacating the petitioners and on the other hand the respondents themselves are not following the procedure laid down therein. 3. Seriously opposing the prayer in the writ petition and challenging the maintainability of the writ petition, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents submits that the decision taken by the Board cannot be challenged by the petitioners. The Board was constituted for ascertaining whether the quarters allotted to the petitioners are habitable or not, and the opinion of the Board cannot be examined in the present proceeding. 4. I find that under Circular dated 18.08.1978 whereunder the earlier Circular dated 5/6.01.1951 has been reiterated and clarified, the petitioners were allotted accommodation. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the defence employees, and they are not civilians. However, I find that the petitioners who are civilians paid from the Defence Service Estimates cannot claim themselves to be the defence employees. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the defence employees, and they are not civilians. However, I find that the petitioners who are civilians paid from the Defence Service Estimates cannot claim themselves to be the defence employees. Clause 4(c) of the Circular dated 18.08.1978 discloses that if alternative accommodation has been allotted temporarily to the civilians, they must vacate the accommodation at the short notice. The civilians who were provided alternative accommodation cannot claim alternative accommodation as a matter of right. It has further been provided that if such employee refuses to vacate the alternative accommodation, on the expiry of notice period, he shall be deemed to be unauthorised occupant. On the orders of the Station Headquarter, a Board was constituted which has reported that the quarters allotted to the petitioners are not habitable. Accordingly, notices have been issued declaring the quarters dangerous for habitation. Considering the fact that alternative accommodation allotted to the petitioners have been declared dangerous, no interference is warranted with the notices issued to the petitioners directing them to vacate the quarters. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioners are directed to vacate the quarters by 31.12.2015.