New Delhi: Government housing is meant for service-serving officers and not as a “philanthropy” and distribution of generosity to retirees, Supreme court Setting aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing a retired public servant to maintain such premises.
Right of shelter does not mean right of government accommodation, the apex court said, directing a retired public servant to maintain such premises for an indefinite period. state’s generosity without any policy.
A bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice AS Bopanna, while allowing the appeal filed by the Centre, set aside the order of the High Court and directed the retiring. intelligence bureau Officer, a Kashmiri migrant, to hand over the vacant physical possession of the premises on or before October 31, 2021.
The bench also directed the Center to submit by November 15, 2021, a report on the action taken against retired government employees, who are in government accommodation after retirement, based on the orders of the High Courts.
The officer, who was transferred to Faridabad, where he was allotted a government residence, had attained the age of retirement from service on October 31, 2006.
“The right to shelter does not mean the right to government housing. Government housing service is meant for officers and officials and not as a dispensation of benevolence and generosity to retirees,” the bench said in its judgment passed last week.
The top court was hearing a petition against the July 2011 order of a division bench of the High Court, which had dismissed a petition against the order of its single judge.
The single judge had said that it was not possible for the retired officer to go back to his state, due to which the eviction order would be kept in abeyance. The High Court had also said that the authorities were free to provide him an alternative accommodation in Faridabad at a nominal license fee.
The officer had earlier given representation to the concerned authority to allow them to retain the government accommodation and they were allowed to retain the house for one more year.
Later, he submitted another representation in June 2007 that he should be allowed to retain the house allotted to him at a nominal license fee, till the prevailing conditions in Jammu and Kashmir improve and the government will allow him to return to his native place. But don’t make it possible to go back.
He was served a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and later, an eviction order was passed, but this was stayed by a district court in Delhi.
When objections were raised about the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi court, he withdrew his appeal and filed in the Faridabad court, which dismissed it in August 2009. Later, the matter reached the High Court.
In its judgment, the apex court referred to several earlier judgments and observed that it is held that government accommodation is only for in-service officers and not for retirees or those who have quit.
It said, “Compassion, however genuine, does not entitle a retired person to stay at a government residence.”
It was noted that as per the policy framed by the Government, a displaced person is to be kept in a transit accommodation and if it is not available, cash compensation is to be provided.
“There is no policy of the Central Government or the State Government to provide accommodation to the displaced persons due to terrorism in the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” it said. “The hardship faced by them does not constitute an equal duty of the State to provide them alternative government accommodation.”
It said that a section of the society, and more retired government employees, who have earned pension and received retirement benefits, cannot be said to be in a situation where the government should provide government accommodation for an unlimited period.
“A section of the migrants cannot be treated as a preferential citizen to grant the right of shelter at the cost of lakhs of other citizens who do not have a roof over their heads,” it said.
The bench said that the right of shelter to a displaced person is satisfied when the accommodation is provided in transit accommodation.
The bench said that with reference to the policy, which was considered in the earlier judgment of the apex court, Kashmiri migrants are entitled to transit accommodation and if the transit accommodation cannot be provided then funds for residence and expenses.
It said that the retired officers and such persons in this case do not belong to the poorest section of the migrants and have worked in high positions of the bureaucracy.
“To say that they are exercising their right to asylum only unless there are favorable conditions for their safe return is completely misleading. No one is sure at what time the situation will be favorable to the satisfaction of the migrants. Such benevolence and preferential right to a section of citizens is unfair to serving officers,” it said.
It quashed the High Court order and restored the writ petition challenging the order under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Possession) Act, 1971.
Right of shelter does not mean right of government accommodation, the apex court said, directing a retired public servant to maintain such premises for an indefinite period. state’s generosity without any policy.
A bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice AS Bopanna, while allowing the appeal filed by the Centre, set aside the order of the High Court and directed the retiring. intelligence bureau Officer, a Kashmiri migrant, to hand over the vacant physical possession of the premises on or before October 31, 2021.
The bench also directed the Center to submit by November 15, 2021, a report on the action taken against retired government employees, who are in government accommodation after retirement, based on the orders of the High Courts.
The officer, who was transferred to Faridabad, where he was allotted a government residence, had attained the age of retirement from service on October 31, 2006.
“The right to shelter does not mean the right to government housing. Government housing service is meant for officers and officials and not as a dispensation of benevolence and generosity to retirees,” the bench said in its judgment passed last week.
The top court was hearing a petition against the July 2011 order of a division bench of the High Court, which had dismissed a petition against the order of its single judge.
The single judge had said that it was not possible for the retired officer to go back to his state, due to which the eviction order would be kept in abeyance. The High Court had also said that the authorities were free to provide him an alternative accommodation in Faridabad at a nominal license fee.
The officer had earlier given representation to the concerned authority to allow them to retain the government accommodation and they were allowed to retain the house for one more year.
Later, he submitted another representation in June 2007 that he should be allowed to retain the house allotted to him at a nominal license fee, till the prevailing conditions in Jammu and Kashmir improve and the government will allow him to return to his native place. But don’t make it possible to go back.
He was served a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and later, an eviction order was passed, but this was stayed by a district court in Delhi.
When objections were raised about the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi court, he withdrew his appeal and filed in the Faridabad court, which dismissed it in August 2009. Later, the matter reached the High Court.
In its judgment, the apex court referred to several earlier judgments and observed that it is held that government accommodation is only for in-service officers and not for retirees or those who have quit.
It said, “Compassion, however genuine, does not entitle a retired person to stay at a government residence.”
It was noted that as per the policy framed by the Government, a displaced person is to be kept in a transit accommodation and if it is not available, cash compensation is to be provided.
“There is no policy of the Central Government or the State Government to provide accommodation to the displaced persons due to terrorism in the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” it said. “The hardship faced by them does not constitute an equal duty of the State to provide them alternative government accommodation.”
It said that a section of the society, and more retired government employees, who have earned pension and received retirement benefits, cannot be said to be in a situation where the government should provide government accommodation for an unlimited period.
“A section of the migrants cannot be treated as a preferential citizen to grant the right of shelter at the cost of lakhs of other citizens who do not have a roof over their heads,” it said.
The bench said that the right of shelter to a displaced person is satisfied when the accommodation is provided in transit accommodation.
The bench said that with reference to the policy, which was considered in the earlier judgment of the apex court, Kashmiri migrants are entitled to transit accommodation and if the transit accommodation cannot be provided then funds for residence and expenses.
It said that the retired officers and such persons in this case do not belong to the poorest section of the migrants and have worked in high positions of the bureaucracy.
“To say that they are exercising their right to asylum only unless there are favorable conditions for their safe return is completely misleading. No one is sure at what time the situation will be favorable to the satisfaction of the migrants. Such benevolence and preferential right to a section of citizens is unfair to serving officers,” it said.
It quashed the High Court order and restored the writ petition challenging the order under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Possession) Act, 1971.
.