JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his letter No.EC/883/Dn-III/2016, dated 07.12.2016 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st and 2nd respondents herein from allotting apartment to the 3rd to 7th respondents in slum tenement in Erikarai, Vysarpadi, Chennai - 600 039 permanently.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 07.12.2016 and seeks a direction to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 herein from allotting apartment to the 3rd to 7th respondents in slum tenement in Erikarai, Vysarpadi, Chennai - 600 039. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and residing with her daughter in Murthingar Street, Erikarai, Vyasarpadi, Chennai. The Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a decision to develop the living status of the slum people residing in the above said area and issued temporary allotment orders individually by taking note of individual ration card. The very object of providing apartment is to give shelter to the slum people those who are economically and socially very poor. The other people like Central Government employees, State Government employees and Local Body employees etc., cannot be called as slum dwellers due to the reason that they are having permanent Government jobs. 3. The petitioner came to understand that the respondents 3 to 7 had obtained temporary allotment order Nos.450, 449, 451, 452 and 453 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is working in the King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Guindy, Chennai and therefore she cannot be termed as a slum dweller and she is not entitled for allotment. Similarly, the 7th respondent is also an encroacher and she is also not a slum dweller and allotment cannot be made to her. Therefore, challenging the impugned allotment order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner and the third respondent families are living in unhygienic conditions and it was notified as a slum and brought under the Scheme of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The land was alienated to the Board vide G.O.Ms.No.397, Revenue Department, dated 07.07.2005. 4. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner and the third respondent families are living in unhygienic conditions and it was notified as a slum and brought under the Scheme of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The land was alienated to the Board vide G.O.Ms.No.397, Revenue Department, dated 07.07.2005. As the slum was congested without proper road and other basic amenities, it was proposed to construct multi storeyed tenements in the same area under XIII Finance Commission grants and to rehabilitate these families in the same area. The petitioner and her daughter were one among the encroachers and therefore they were included in the list of families to be rehabilitated and issued with Topo No.456 & 454 respectively. It is further stated that temporary allotment to the individual families was issued based on their proof of residence after conducting proper enumeration and employment of an individual living in the slum was not the criteria. Further the writ petition has been filed with previous enmity with other respondents, hence oppose this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent was employed in the King Institute, Guindy after the death of her husband and the respondents 4 to 7 are in no way connected to the slum has been allotted flats. Whereas, when the third respondent has become the Government servant, allotment cannot be made. It is his further contention that no Government servant should be an encroacher upon Government property as per the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules. He further submitted that the object of the Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 is to give benefit to the poor families who are residing in the slum and not to Government servants. Hence the learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the second respondent allotting flats in favour of the respondents 3 to 7 has to be set aside. 6. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board submitted that the petitioner and the third respondent are close relatives. Due to some family dispute, the writ petition came to be filed. It is his further contention that the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 are residing in the slum by encroaching upon the Government land and living in an unhygienic condition. Due to some family dispute, the writ petition came to be filed. It is his further contention that the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 are residing in the slum by encroaching upon the Government land and living in an unhygienic condition. After the property has been identified as a slum area, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has originally made temporary allotment for the families who are residing permanently. According to the learned counsel as per the Guidelines only the proof of residence has been verified and income criteria has not been taken note of. The very object of the Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 is to provide health atmosphere and hygienic condition to the slum dwellers and merely because people who became Government Servant at a later point of time will not be a ground to cancel the allotment. He further submitted that now permanent allotment has been made to the respective parties. It is his further contention that as against the order passed by the first respondent only appeal is maintainable under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971. Hence according to him the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the entire materials. 8. As rightly pointed out, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and the third respondent are close relatives. In fact, the third respondent appears to be the sister-in-law of the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that as the third respondent has become a Government servant, allotment ought not to have been made in her favour by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. 9. It is to be noted that the very object of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 is to provide for the improvement and clearance of slums in the State of Tamil Nadu and to arrest the growth of slums, to eliminate congestion and to provide for certain basic needs such as streets, water-supply and drainage in slums and to clear slums which are unfit for human habitation. Further, to provide for the removal of unhygienic and insanitary conditions prevailing in slums, for better accommodation and improved living conditions for slum dwellers, for the promotion of public health generally and for the acquisition of land for the purpose of improving or developing slum areas, re-developing slum clearance areas and rehabilitating slum dwellers. 10. It is not disputed that according to the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 7 are residing as encroacher's in the slum area. The said area has been identified as a slum area and in order to give better amenities, it was decided to construct multi-storey flats and the encroachers have been identified in the said area as per the Rules. As per the Consolidated Guidelines for the Implementation of Housing for all Mission (Urban), the only condition is that the beneficiary family should not own a pucca house either in his/her name or in the name of any member of his/her family in any part of India. Further the category of landless people who are eligible for getting benefits under Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) are the people who are residing in slum areas, people residing in objectionable poramboke land viz., water courses, road margin, forest/forest margin, land required for public purposes and people residing in vulnerable locations, viz., flood prone areas, coastal areas, vulnerable to cyclones, landslides, other natural calamities, people residing in dilapidated tenements of TNUHDB, Projects Affected Families (PAF) - Families which are displaced for implementation of development projects, pavement dwellers and EWS family residing in a rental house. 11. What is required for identifying such persons is their family card, driving licence, electoral photo identity card, employee identity card, bank pass book, recent electricity or gas bill, certificate/ID cards issued by ULBs for pavement dwellers, birth certificate, old age pension or other pension orders, residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar and if people resettled from objectionable poramboke lands or lands required for development purpose, the enumeration list to be approved by the respective department/ULB/Agency which requires resettlement etc., 12. The Guidelines further indicate that even persons receiving pension who are residing in slum will be entitled to such benefit as per the Guidelines. The Guidelines further indicate that even persons receiving pension who are residing in slum will be entitled to such benefit as per the Guidelines. As long as there is no specific bar in the Statute for restraining such benefit to the persons in the slum area to become Government servant at a later point of time, it cannot be stated that allotment of the flat made by the second respondent to the third respondent is against the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules. The Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules is to discipline the Government Servants. Though, Conduct Rules prohibit the Government Servants from encroaching upon Government lands that alone cannot be a ground to deny the entire benefits extended to the slum areas. If a person is already born in a slum, raised in the slum and later on become a Government Servant, it cannot be said that he was an encroacher and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971. Further it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that now permanent allotment has been made to the respondents 3 to 7. 13. Considering the above and also the relationship between the parties and litigation is also pending, personal enmity cannot be a ground to challenge the order granted in favour of the respondents 3 to 7. Accordingly this Court holds that there is no merit in this writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.