The central legal point established in the judgment is that Kashmiri Pandits, including retired government servants, are entitled to retain government accommodation until a rehabilitation scheme is framed and their entitlement to alternative accommodation is determined.

S. Muralidhar, J.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 21st July 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Appellant's W.P. (C) 6875 of 2015.

2. The Appellant pleaded the following facts stated in the writ petition:

(i) He was a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 28th September, 1983, he joined the office of the Controller General of Defence Accounts under the Ministry of Defence, and from 1983 to 1985 was posted at District Udhampur in Jammu and Kashmir. Thereafter, between March 1985 to February 1989, he was posted in Leh, also in Jammu and Kashmir.

(ii) Between 1989 and 1992, the Appellant was posted in Srinagar. Owing to the uncontrolled violence in the Kashmir Valley from 1989-1990 onwards and the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits on account of threat to their lives and liberty, he was forced to migrate along with his family leaving behind all belongings and was rendered homeless. He along with other employees of the Department was sent back to Srinagar under security cover where the Appellant continued working till 1992. He has been posted in Delhi since October, 1992.

(iii) Upon his posting in Delhi, the Appellant was allotted Quarter No.C-17, Panchwati, Palam, Delhi Cantonment, which is a residential accommodation forming part of the Defence Accounts Department ("DAD") Pool.

(iv) In 2013, on account of the ill health of his wife, the Appellant submitted a letter dated 8th April, 2013 to the Respondents opting for retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). He requested that the same may be accepted after completion of notice period of three months. This was accepted by letter dated 16th July, 2013.

(v) Since the Appellant was forced to leave his hometown on account of militancy, he was registered as a Kashmiri Migrant with the concerned department in Jammu and Kashmir. He was issued a Migration Certificate dated 28th September 2013.

(vi) However, on 16th November 2013, stating that his wife's health had improved and that he had still had 3 years service left, the Appellant sought to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. A further letter dated 10th November 2014 was also sent by the Appellant, requesting that action may be taken upon his request for reinstatement and regularization which was still pending.

(vii) Even while a decision on the said application was awaited, the Estate Office by order dated 27th October 2014 commenced proceedings against the Appellant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter "PP Act") and ordered him to vacate the government accommodation within 15 days of the publication of the order.

(viii) By another letter dated 12th February 2015, the Respondents issued a communication calling upon the Appellant to explain why legal action should not be initiated against him for not complying with the order dated 27th October 2014. A further representation dated 20th February 2015 was made by the Appellant reiterating his request for withdrawal of his application for VRS. This was rejected by the Respondents by a letter dated 15th May 2015.

3. W.P.(C) 6875/2015 was filed by the Appellant in the above background seeking orders to restrain the Respondents from evicting him from the Government accommodation, till such time he was able to return to Jammu and Kashmir or to provide any suitable accommodation in the alternative in Delhi.

4. The claim of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge was based on the judgment dated 30th November 2010 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions of which the lead petition was W.P.(C) 15239/2004 (P.K. Koul v. Estate Officer). By that judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside and quashed the orders cancelling the allotment of persons similarly placed as the present Appellant. The consequential eviction orders passed against them under the PP Act were also quashed. A direction was issued to the Respondents to "make all endeavors