C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION:18.09.2008
Shiv Kumar & Ors. ..........Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Housing Board ..........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Aupam Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
UMA NATH SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
there is no rule to support the scheme providing for categorization of
accommodation like A,B,C and D and providing separate eligibility criteria.
Thus this scheme under challenge is arbitrary in nature. He referred to
Clause (II) (B) of the impugned scheme, which on reproduction, reads as
under:-
“The number of flats in each category shall depend upon the
number of applications received for each category of Flats and
the availability of land, generally keeping the same proportion
as the number of applications received in each category. An
employee shall be eligible for a dwelling unit according to his
group. The Group ‘A’ employee shall be eligible for Three Bed
Room Flat, the Group ‘B’ employees shall be eligible for a
C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (2)dwelling unit according to his group. The Group ‘A’ employee
shall be eligible for Three Bed Room Flat, the Group ‘B’
employee shall be eligible for Two Bed Room Flat, the Group
‘C’ employee shall be eligible for One Bed Room Flat and
Group ‘D’ employee shall be eligible for One Room Flat.
However, an employee from a higher group shall be eligible to
apply for a lower category of dwelling unit.”
Mr. Bali took exception to the eligibility criteria that an officer of
higher group could apply for a lower category of dwelling unit, and also
submitted that if the impugned scheme has been launched to provide
accommodation according to pay scales, then officials of category ‘C’, who
are presently getting higher pay due to length of service should also be
eligible to apply for higher category of dwelling unit. Mr. Bali referred to the
Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of
Tenements) Regulation Act, 1979. Regulation 6 (1) prescribes the
eligibility criteria. Mr. Bali took us in particular to Regulation 25 (iv) to
argue that there is no such classification that 5% of employees of Punjab,
Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh, who have retired or who may retire within
three years would be eligible to apply for allotment. He further submitted
that this set of criteria should also apply in cases of serving officers.
On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel
appearing for Chandigarh Housing Board submitted that this scheme has
been framed primarily on the basis of pay scales of different groups of
officers serving in U.T., Administration having come from different streams.
This is also a submission of Mr. Gupta that presently pay scales of Punjab
Government employees have been adopted by the Chandigarh
Administration for its employees and this is not the length of service but the
pay scales being drawn by employees at the time of joining their services
C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (3)
that would matter to determine the eligibility.
Mr. Gupta further submitted that the number of lower category
dwelling unit is many times more than the higher category, therefore, a
large number of employees of lower group can be accommodated in the
scheme in comparison with employees of higher group. Mr. Gupta referred
to chart Annexure R-4 to show the position of applications received for
different categories of dwelling units. According to him, for one bed room
set, in total 5775 applications were received and the percentage of flats
available under that category would be 74.36%, whereas, in higher
category, the percentage of flats would be much less.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and find
that the categorization of dwelling units under the impugned scheme has
been made only on the basis of basic salary drawn at the entry point in
service. Petitioners seem to be aggrieved mainly by the criterion that the
officers of higher group would not only occupy the dwelling units of their
entitlement but would also be eligible to occupy the dwelling units of lower
category. If the categorization is based only on the basic salary drawn at
the time of joining, then we don’t find any justification for the officers of
higher group to occupy the dwelling units of lower category. Accordingly,
the eligibility criteria that an officer of higher group would also occupy a
dwelling unit of lower category appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
This scheme insofar as it relates to the entitlement of officers of higher
group to apply for dwelling units of lower category is, therefore, quashed as
unsustainable. This writ petition is thus allowed in part.
(UMA NATH SINGH)
JUDGE
September 18, 2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
pooja JUDGE
C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (4)