ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
2. Petitioner, who was working as a Deputy Director (Education) with the NCT of Delhi, was sent on deputation as Joint Director (Education), NDMC, on 7th of October, 1994. In pursuance of her posting with the NDMC, petitioner was allotted flat No. 15 (V), Satya Sadan, Chanakayapuri, New Delhi on 21st of August, 1995. One of the terms of allotment was that petitioner would vacate the said flat within seven days of her repatriation to the parent department. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been repatriated with effect from 31st of July, 1997.
3. Petitioner did not vacate the flat allotted to her. However, this was not acceded to. She sought extension and desired to retain the flat under Inter-pool exchange of government accommodation. The Estate Department of the NCt also requested the NDMC, vide letter of 23rd July, 1998, to allow the petitioner to retain the flat and stated that a flat, in lieu of the
one retained, would be made available as and when the vacancy arises. Notices were issued and proceedings under Sections 5 & 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act were initiated against the petitioner. Demand for payment of market rate of rent was also raised. Vide order dated 28th of January, 1998, petitioner was directed to vacated the flat in question.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents have been discriminating against the petitioner and, in fact, as many as 18 officers have been permitted to continue to occupy the accommodation, allotted during the deputation period, even after their repatriation to the parent department.
5. Based on the directions given by the Court, the respondents have filed an additional affidavit, wherein it is clarified that it is only in cases where the parent department of the concerned officer has agreed to release a flat under the Inter-pool exchange of flats, with the approval of the Urban Development Ministry, that some officers have been permitted to
retain the accommodation allotted to them on deputation. In the absence of any release of accommodation from the parent department under the Interpool exchange, the officer on deputation is bound to Vacate the flat on repatriation. The inter-pool exchange proceeds on the premise of a one-to-one exchange.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case of Flat No. 14 (V), Satya Sadan, Chanakayapuri, New Delhi, which is under the occupation of one Ms. Rita Kumar. It is stated that the said Ms. Rita Kumar has been permitted to retain the flat even after her repatriation to her parent department on 5th of December, 1995, only on the assurance of her parent department releasing a flat in lieu thereof, as and when a vacancy arises. It is stated that similar assurance has been given in respect of the flat in occupation of the petitioner, by the Government of NCT of Delhi, vide their letter dated 23rd of July, 1998. The said letter appears at page 20 of the paper book. It is not in dispute that no such flat has been released by the NCT pursuant to the said letter. The NDMC cannot be expected to wait indefinitely, especially when they are facing problems in accommodating their own officers.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the occupant of flat No.14 (V), Satya Sadan, Chanakayapuri, New Delhi, referred to earlier, was being permitted to continue to occupy the flat, action against the petitioner was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The submission is misconceived. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has no application when action is taken by the authorities to remove one wrong, merely on the ground that no action has been taken to remove the other wrongs. A wrong decision in favour of one person does not entitle any other person to claim benefit on the basis of the said wrong decision. Reference is invited to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Khurana Vs. MCD. (1996 I AD (Delhi) 749. The Division Bench, while repelling the plea of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution observed as under:
“The plea of discrimination cannot be put forth when the law is given effect to. The denial of illegal favour cannot amount to discriminatory treatment violative of principles of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. A wrong decision in favour of one person does not entitle any other person to claim benefit on the basis of the said wrong decision. In short, there cannot be a right to be illegally favoured on the ground that others have been so favoured”
8. It is high time that government implements uniformly its policy and procedures in relation of allotment and retention of flats as well as provisions relating to the inter-pool exchange. Departures from the policy and incidents of ‘pick and choose’ cause avoidable jealousies and frustration in those who are denied the benefit and can have a cascading demoralising effect on the employees. The respondents should, therefore, take similar action in cases where officers have continued to retain the accommodation even after repatriation to the parent department even though no accommodation has been released by their parent department under the interpool exchange.
9. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.