Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 8 (JHR)

Shayama Devi v. Jharkhand State Housing Board

2020-01-06

B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the three respondents. 2. Instant writ application is filed for directing the respondents to regularize the allotment of Flat No. 34 (R-6/4), New Housing Colony, Adityapur. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the original petitioner being Narendra Prasad, husband of petitioner no. 1 was the Block Education Development Officer and was posted at Jamsehdpur in the year 1969. During this period, the original petitioner was allotted the Flat by the Housing Board and he paid the rent up to the year 1981. The original petitioner approached the Housing Board for allotment of the Flat in his favour, but, it was informed that the same was allotted in favour of another person in the year 2002, which prompted him to file instant writ application. After the death of original petitioner his legal heirs were substituted in his place. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as per the Scheme, the Housing Board has made available some flats in favour of the Department of Education for the purpose of allotment amongst its employees, who had long career of service. Accordingly, the Flat No. 34 (R-6/4), New Housing Colony at Adityapur was allotted in favour of the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur, who, in turn, allotted it to the original petitioner namely Narendra Prasad on monthly rental basis and the rent of the Flat was regularly deducted by the employer from the salary of the original petitioner. Admittedly, the original petitioner, who was a Government employee, was transferred in the year 1981 from Jamshedpur and thereafter, no rent was deducted from his salary. After 18 years, the original petitioner approached the Housing Board for allotment of that Flat in his favour, which could not have been done as the Flat was on the rental basis and was made available to the Department and not directly to the original petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that since the original petitioner was transferred in the year 1981 and the original petitioner did not apply in any other Scheme floated by the Housing Department of the Government for allotment of the Flat/ House/land and, so, there was no question of allotment in favour of original petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that since the original petitioner was transferred in the year 1981 and the original petitioner did not apply in any other Scheme floated by the Housing Department of the Government for allotment of the Flat/ House/land and, so, there was no question of allotment in favour of original petitioner. It was further submitted that after the death of the original petitioner, the legal heirs were substituted and now the wife is pursuing the matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Housing Board further submitted that the said Flat was allotted to another person in year 2002 and since then that allottee is in occupation of the said Flat. 5. Considering the above submission of the parties as also on perusal of the annexures attached herewith, it appears from Annexure-1 that the Scheme was that the Flat would be under the Monthly Rental Scheme and there was no clause of transfer of ownership to the employees concerned, who were in occupation of the Flat. It further appears that the rent was realized by the Department from its employee and later, it was being deposited to the Housing Board. As per the submission of the parties, the rent was regularly deducted by the Department of Education from the original allottee, who was husband of petitioner no.1 till he was posted at Jamshedpur i.e. till the year 1981 and thereafter, no deduction of rent was made from his salary. It further appears that the said Flat was allotted to some other person, who is already in occupation of that Flat. Since there is no clause or scheme by the Housing Board for allotment of such Flats to the person concerned, who had been in occupation of the Flat, as Government employees of a particular department on payment of monthly rental, therefore, no relief could be granted to the present petitioners. 6. Resultantly, instant writ application is dismissed.