1. Retired government employee — Retention of government accommodation — Eviction proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 — Challenge based on displacement by terrorism. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 997
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Onkar Nath Dhar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2014
Decided On : 05-08-2021
Important Points
Government accommodation is a privilege for serving employees, not a right for retirees. The fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 does not entitle retired government servants to occupy government housing indefinitely, as such accommodation is intended to facilitate official duties, not as a permanent benefit or state largesse.
Subject
Accommodation - Government Accommodation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.21, Art.142, Art.141
Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules: .
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: S.2(1)(d)
Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant Act: .
Uttar Pradesh Ministers Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions Act: S.4(2)(a)
Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules: .
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: S.2(1)(d)
Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant Act: .
Uttar Pradesh Ministers Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions Act: S.4(2)(a)
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21, 142 – Amendment Act, 1997 – Section 4-A –Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 –Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Section 2(1)(d) – U.P. Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 – Section 4(2)( a) – Order passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana is subject matter of challenge in present appeal – Learned Single Bench has allowed writ petition of a Kashmiri migrant, respondent1who shifted to Jammu – He was transferred to office of Intelligence Bureau in Delhi – Later he was transferred to Faridabad where he has been allotted a government accommodation – Respondent attained age of superannuation from service – Held, No one is sure that at what point of time condition will be conducive to satisfaction of the migrants – Such benevolence and preferential right to section of citizens is unfair to serving officers – Dhar like persons should have compassion for their fellow employees who may be without any government accommodation – Right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation – Government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse – Thus, Court find that the orders passed by the High Court are absolutely without any basis and in absence of any policy of allotment of government accommodation to a retired government servant, who may be victim of terrorism – Orders passed are wholly arbitrary and irrational – Court are unable to agree with reasoning recorded by Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts – Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Vimla Sinha Adv. Ms. Seema Bengani Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasiya, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Vimla Sinha Adv. Ms. Seema Bengani Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasiya, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Right to shelter under Article 21 and humanitarian assistance for displaced persons — versus — Government accommodation as a privilege for serving employees only. (Para 7 , 8 , 15 )
3. Government accommodation facilitates official duties — Right to shelter satisfied by transit accommodation or compensation — Compassion cannot override the purpose of public property allotment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 )
4. Government accommodation is meant for serving officers, not retirees — Right to shelter does not equate to a right to occupy government housing. (Para 13 , 15 , 19 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court orders set aside — Direction to vacate government accommodation. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Does the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution include a right to occupy government accommodation for retired employees?
No. While the right to shelter is a fundamental right, it does not extend to a right to occupy government accommodation, which is intended for serving employees to facilitate their duties. For displaced persons, this right is satisfied through transit accommodation or cash compensation. (Para 14 , 15 , 19 )
7. Are directions issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution binding precedents for other courts?
No. Directions given on special facts in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 are not binding precedents. Only the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 is binding; relief molded for specific facts under Article 142 is not. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
8. Can humanitarian grounds or the status of a displaced person justify the indefinite retention of government accommodation by a retired official?
No. Compassion for displaced persons does not create a legal right for retired employees to occupy government housing indefinitely. Such accommodation is a privilege for serving officers, and allowing retirees to stay would be an unfair distribution of state largesse. (Para 13 , 15 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The order passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 07.07.2011 is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. The learned Single Bench has allowed the writ petition of a Kashmiri migrant, the respondent1[Onkar Nath Dhar, in short ‘Dhar’] who shifted to Jammu in the year 1989 or so. He was transferred to the office of the Intelligence Bureau in Delhi. Later he was transferred to Faridabad where he has been allotted a government accommodation. The respondent attained the age of superannuation from service on 31.10.2006.
2. The respondent gave representation to the appellant to allow him to retain the government accommodation, which was allowed and Dhar was allowed to retain house for another one year. Dhar submitted another representation on 18.6.2007 to allow him to retain house allotted to him on a nominal licence fee till the circumstances prevailing in Jammu & Kashmir improve and the Government makes it possible for him to return to his native place.
3. Dhar was served with a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 19712[For short, the ‘Act’]. An order for eviction against Dhar was passed but was stayed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. An objection was raised of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. Dhar withdrew his appeal and filed it in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad which was dismissed on 19.08.2009. Such orders were the subject matter of challenge before the learned High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the civil writ petition, which was allowed on 24.10.2010.
4. The learned Single Bench relied upon an order passed by this Court in J.L. Koul v. State of J & K, (2010) 1 SCC 371. It was held, that it is not possible for Dhar to return to his own State and that due to which order of eviction shall be kept in abeyance, although the appellants are at liberty to provide alternative accommodation to Dhar on nominal licence fee in Faridabad. The same was affirmed by the learned Division Bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
5. J.L. Koul was a case arising out of residential accommodation allotted to the appellant who was a government servant at Jammu in the year 1989-90. The appellant therein was permitted to retain the house allotted at Jammu for safety reasons. In terms of the interim order passed by the Court, the Chief Secretary of the State had filed an affidavit on 06.10.2009 and disclosed that out of 54 appellants who were in Court, 23 had already vacated government accommodation and the same had been allotted to the government employees whereas 31 migrants are still occupying the government accommodation. 37,280 families have been registered for the relief including the accommodation and only 5,000 families have been provided with the accommodation. The affidavit stipulates providing transit accommodation and alternatively Rupees One Lakh per family towards rental and incidental expenses to those who were not able to be accommodated in the transit accommodation. The relevant clause is as under:
“(b) Transit Accommodation: Construction of transit accommodation at three sites @ Rs.20.00 crore each for total Rs. 60.00 crore. Alternatively, Rs. 1.00 lac per family towards rental and incidental expenses to those families who may not be accommodated in transit accommodation.”
6. This Court passed an order in J.L. Koul that no further action is required, wherein it was held as under:
“8. The aforesaid affidavit makes it clear that the State Authorities have framed the rehabilitation scheme and for implementation of the same, it got the resources also. In such a fact situation no further action/direction is required.
9. In view of the above affidavit/undertaking given by the State and after hearing Mrs. Purnima Bhat Kak, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Ld. Counsel for the State, we dispose of the appeal with a pious hope that State shall take all endeavour
