( 1 )

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Sub Inspector in the delhi Police on 1. 3. 1988 and was thereafter given promotions and went on deputation to the CBI. In January, 1997 Central Government Employees welfare Organization introduced its third housing scheme in the National capital Region - Phase-II, Noida Housing Scheme at Sector 51. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the said scheme and paid all the amounts including the final demand made.

( 4 ) THE dispute arose on account of the fact that respondents No. 2 and 3, which is the Housing Organization, cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner on 30. 6. 1999 on the ground that the petitioner is not an employee of the Central Government but an employee of the Delhi Police and was, thus, not eligible to apply under the scheme. The petitioner made a representation against the same and even sent a certificate of the additional Deputy Commissioner of Police certifying that the petitioner is working in Delhi Police (Central Civil Employee ). The representation of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 22. 7. 1999 and in terms of letter dated 23. 10. 1999 it has been stated that the amount had been refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, filed the present writ petition for quashing of the decision cancelling the allotment made to the petitioner of Flat No. 187, Block No. 17, Sector-51, Noida, Phase-II.

( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 the only defence is the ground taken for cancellation which is that the petitioner is not a Central Government employee since that was an eligibility condition before a person to register under the scheme. It is further stated that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have actually not refunded the amount to the petitioner.

( 6 ) IN terms of the order dated 12. 5. 2003 respondent No. 1 Union of india was directed to file an affidavit to indicate as to whether the personnel of Delhi Police are under the Delhi Government or the Central government. An affidavit is stated to have filed on 15. 11. 2003 vide diary no. 43083, but the same is not on record and a copy of the same is made available in Court, which is placed on record. In terms of this affidavit reliance has been placed on OM 29. 8. 2002 issued by the Government of india, Ministry of Home Affairs stating that the employees of the Union territories including those of Delhi Police, have the status of employees engaged with the affairs of the Union of India and that that in case of delhi Police the expenditure incurred on them is made from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Office Memorandum is as under:- ministry of Home Affairs new Delhi, the 29 August, 2002 office MEMORANDUM sub: CW No. 2380/2000 - Smt: Rajni Dobal v. Union of India and Ors. The undersigned is directed to refer to Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty alleviation s Office Memorandum No. I-14012/14/99-HII dated the 13th August 2002 on the subject cited above and to say that the employees of the Union Territories, including those of Delhi police, have the status of employees engaged with the affairs of the Union of India and that in the case of Delhi police the expenditure incurred on them is met from the Consolidated Fund of India. The same position persisted in March, 1997. Yours faithfully, sd/- (K. S. Santoshi) for Director (Delhi)"

( 7 ) IN my considered view in view of the aforesaid stand of the Union of India there remains no doubt that the petitioner is an employee of the union of India and, thus, the flat allotted to the petitioner could not have been cancelled on account of the fact that the petitioner wrongly registered herself under the scheme or was not an employee of the government of India. It may be noticed that full payment already stands made.

( 8 ) A writ of mandamus is issued quashing the cancellation of allotment of