Constitution of India:
Art. 21 – Right to claim government accommodation, if falls under the right to shelter – Held: Right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation – Government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees who have demitted office, as a benevolence and distribution of largesse – No exception for persons who held constitutional posts – Allowing the displaced persons to retain the Government accommodation already allotted or to allot an alternative accommodation that too with a nominal licence fee defeats the very purpose of the Government accommodation which is meant for serving officers – On facts, the High Court allowed the government officer-Kashmiri migrant, to retain government accommodation after retirement, on basis of compassion showed to displaced persons on account of terrorist activities in the State, relying on J L Koul case – Orders passed by the High Court wholly arbitrary and irrational, in the absence of any policy of allotment of government accommodation to a retired government servant, who may be victim of terrorism - Order passed by the High Court set aside – Government officer granted time to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises, after 15 years of his attaining the age of superannuation – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971.
Art. 142 – Applicability of the case of J.L. Koul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir – Direction in J.L. Koul’s case, that accepting the rehabilitation scheme finalized by the State Government, retired government employees allowed to stay in the government accommodation even after retirement for safety reasons, in terms of Art. 142 – Held: Direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 142 not a binding precedent – J L Koul’ case was based on special facts and direction was in terms of Art. 142 – Thus, the orders passed by the High Court relying on JL Koul’s case without any basis and, JL Koul’s case is inapplicable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Government accommodation could not have been allotted to a person who had demitted office. No exception was carved out even in respect of the persons who held Constitutional posts at one point of time. The Government accommodation is only meant for in-service officers and not for the retirees or those who have demitted office. Therefore, the view of the Delhi High Court and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is erroneous on the basis of compassion showed to displaced persons on account of terrorist activities in the State. The compassion could be shown for accommodating the displaced persons for one or two months but to allow them to retain the Government accommodation already allotted or to allot an alternative accommodation that too with a nominal licence fee defeats the very purpose of the Government accommodation which is meant for serving officers. The compassion howsoever genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy a government accommodation. [Para 13][206-G-H; 207A-C]
1.2 According to a policy framed by the government, a displaced person is to be lodged in a transit accommodation and if it is not available then cash compensation is to be provided. But the displaced persons cannot occupy government accommodation. If a retired government employee had no residence, they have an option to avail transit accommodation or to receive cash compensation in the place of transit accommodation. The right of shelter is taken care of when alternative Transit accommodation is made available to the migrants to meet out the emergent situation. There is no policy of the Central Government or the State Government to provide accommodation to displaced persons on account of terrorism in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Such directions of the Delhi High Court and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is de hors any policy of allotting accommodation to the migrants under the guise of the right to shelter which is clearly in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Courts. The hardship faced by them does not lead to a corresponding duty of the State to provide them alternative government accommodation. [Para 14][207-C-F]
1.3 Respondent was an officer of the Intelligence Bureau. He has drawn his salary and availed of alternative accommodation for 15 years after his retirement along with pensionary benefits. There is no indefeasible right in any citizen for allotment of government accommodation on a nominal licence fee. The government accommodation is meant for the serving government employees to facilitate the discharge of their duties. The government accommodation is not meant for the retirees. The accommodation to the retirees is at the cost of serving officers. In terms of the policy which was considered in *J.L. Koul’ s case, the Kashmiri migrants are entitled to transit accommodation and if transit accommodation could not be provided then money for residence and expenses. Respondent and such like persons are not from the poorest section of the migrants but have worked in the higher echelons of the bureaucracy. To say that they are enforcing their right to shelter only till such time the conditions are conducive for their safe return is wholly illusory. No one is sure that at what point of time the condition will be conducive to the satisfaction of the migrants. Such benevolence and preferential right to section of the citizens is unfair to the serving officers. Respondent like persons should have compassion for their fellow employees who may be without any government accommodation. The right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation. The government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse. [Para 19][210-A-E]
1.4 J.L. Koul is a case, accepting the rehabilitation scheme framed by the State authorities based on which appropriate accommodation was provided to 31 appellants and was given accommodation which was in their possession. Such direction was in terms of Art. 142 of the Constitution. The Courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts. [Para 16][208-B-D]
1.5 The orders passed by the High Court are absolutely without any basis and in the absence of any policy of allotment of government accommodation to a retired government servant, who may be victim of terrorism. The orders passed are wholly arbitrary and irrational. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition challenging the order under the Act is restored. However, the respondent is granted time to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises on or before 31.10.2021, i.e., after 15 years of his attaining the age of superannuation. [Para 20, 21][210-F-H]
J.L. Koul v. State of J & K (2010) 1 SCC 371 : [2009]
15 SCR 452 – held inapplicable.
Lok Prahari (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2016)
8 SCC 389 : [2016] 4 SCR 1026; Lok Prahari (II) v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 1 : [2018]
6 SCR 1076; S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 631 : [2013] 17 SCR 1; Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 444 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 925; Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Mam (2012) SCC OnLine Del 3218; Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 72 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 52; Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 381 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 512 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.